The Supreme Court has held that the temporary or ad hoc appointees cannot claim parity in matters of the determination of seniority with the direct recruitment appointees. In essence, an ad hoc / temporary appointees seniority would be determined from the date of their confirmation in service, not from the date of their initial appointment.

The bench comprising Justice SVN Bhatti and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar said that while the ad hoc services of the appointees can be taken into consideration for pension purposes, it cannot be counted for determination of seniority.

“…a Direct recruit is entitled to claim seniority from the date of appointment and his seniority cannot be fixed based on the date of his confirmation in service. It further laid down that a Government employee cannot claim seniority from the date of initial appointment if he is a temporary or ad hoc employee and not appointed through the rules rather was a stopgap arrangement. This position in law has continued till date. There are, though, decisions where this Court has granted benefit of the service rendered by a Government employee on ad hoc or temporary post till the date of regularisation in service, but only for pension purposes.”, the Court observed.

The dispute arose from temporary appointments made by the Tamil Nadu Government during a ban on recruitment to ministerial posts in 1981–83. M. Prema and other employees were appointed under Rule 10(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1955.

Meanwhile, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission conducted a competitive examination in November 1983 for Group IV posts, with the selected candidates appointed between 1985 and 1987.

The State subsequently regularised the special appointees with effect from June 26, 1984. Clause 10 of the Special Absorption Rules, 1987, provided that these employees would rank below the 1983 batch of direct recruits, irrespective of the latter's dates of appointment.

A separate dispute concerned compassionate appointees S. Prem Kumar and T.A. Kannappa, who were appointed as Junior Assistants in August and November 1985, respectively, and later regularised with effect from their initial appointment dates.

The Madras High Court had held that direct recruits would rank above special appointees, but that seniority between direct recruits and compassionate appointees would depend on their initial appointment dates. The special appointees challenged the validity of Clause 10, while the direct recruits disputed the placement of compassionate appointees above them.

The judgment authored by Justice Chandrashekhar relied on Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra, which distinguishes regular appointments made in accordance with recruitment rules from temporary or ad hoc appointments made as stopgap arrangements.

The Court reiterated that a direct recruit is entitled to claim seniority from the date of appointment, and seniority cannot be deferred until confirmation in service. Conversely, an employee appointed temporarily or on an ad hoc basis outside the prescribed recruitment rules cannot ordinarily claim seniority from the date of initial appointment.

“This is a basic rule of seniority that a Government employee appointed to a post following the due procedure and in accordance with the rules must rank senior to the appointees who entered in service as a temporary or stopgap measure or were appointed owing to some emergency.”, the Court said.

The Court noted that this position in law has continued to remain unchanged. Although it has, in certain cases, recognised service rendered on an ad hoc or temporary basis before regularisation, such benefit has been extended for pensionary purposes and does not automatically entitle an employee to seniority over regular recruits.

“…past services of the Special appointees or for that matter of the Compassionate appointees rendered as ad hoc or temporary employees cannot be counted to accord them seniority over the Direct recruits...”, the Court said.

Compassionate appointee cannot be granted seniority over the direct and special appointees

The Court disagreed with the High Court's decision to grant seniority to the compassionate appointee over the direct and special appointees.

It also held that compassionate appointees could not be placed above direct recruits merely because they had been appointed earlier. The Court observed that compassionate appointment is an exception to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and that regular recruits cannot be rendered junior through the subsequent regularisation of temporary appointees.

“By virtue of the impugned judgment, the Compassionate appointees shall be placed above the Direct recruits and the Special appointees in the seniority list. While holding so, the High Court overlooked a fundamental rule in service jurisprudence that the Direct recruits are entitled to claim seniority over other appointees who came in the cadre through other sources.”, the Court said.

How would inter se seniority between special and compassionate appointees?

As regards the inter se seniority between special and compassionate appointees, the Court directed that it be determined based on their respective dates of regularisation.

“As to inter se seniority between the Compassionate appointees and the Special appointees, we hold that the same must be decided on the basis of their date of regularisation. This is one criterion which is most suited in the present scenario. Any inter se dispute regarding seniority of two sets of employees should be examined on broad principles with a common sense approach. In every seniority-linked dispute there shall always be one or other factor which may weigh in favor of or against a particular set of employees. The Court is, therefore, required to take a practical view of the matter and should not involve itself in forensic examination of every little fact howsoever insignificant it may be. A Court of law must remember that inter se seniority dispute between two sets of employees in the same cadre need not be examined with mathematical precision. Shortly put, except in cases where the Recruitment Rules are clear and provide a methodology for fixing inter se seniority, the norm of counting seniority from the date of regularisation of temporary, ad hoc or Compassionate appointees should be followed to determine their inter-se seniority.”, the Court observed.

The Court accordingly modified the Madras High Court's judgment, holding that compassionate appointees-Prem Kumar and Kannappa could not rank above the 1983 batch of direct recruits.

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) Mr. R. Subramanian, Sr. Adv. Mr. V. Prabhakar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Jyoti Parashar, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar, AOR Ms. Rohini Musa, Adv. Ms. Binu Tamta, AOR Mrs. Revathy Raghavan, AOR Mr. P. R. Kovilan Poongkuntran, Adv. Mrs. Geetha Kovilan, AOR

For Respondent(s) Ms. Rupali Francesca Samuel, AOR Mr. Shikhar Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Shobha Ramamoorthy, AOR Mr. Shilp Vinod, Adv. Ms. Supriya, Adv.

Related: CCS Pension Rules | Contractual Service Must Count Towards Pension Once Employee Is Regularised : Supreme Court