Summary of this article
Temporary service may count towards pension, subject to applicable rules.
Ad hoc employees cannot automatically claim seniority over regular recruits.
Compassionate appointees cannot outrank direct recruits based on joining dates.
The Supreme Court has held that the government servants, who are appointed on ad hoc basis (temporarily), cannot claim seniority from the date of their appointment in absence of proper recruitment procedure.
Their previous service might, however, be used in calculating pensionable service in eligible cases. The decision distinguishes between calculating seniority for retirement and counting past service.
Why The Dispute Arose
The Tamil Nadu government, between 1981 and 1983, made temporary appointments, when recruitment to certain ministerial posts was prohibited. These employees were appointed under rules permitting temporary recruitment. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission conducted an examination in November 1983 to recruit candidates for Group IV posts. The selected candidates joined government service between 1985 and 1987.
The state later regularised the temporary employees with effect from June 26, 1984. However, the rules governing their absorption placed them below direct recruits from the 1983 recruitment batch in the seniority list.
A separate dispute involved two compassionate appointees who joined as junior assistants in 1985. Their appointments were later regularised from their initial joining dates. The Madras High Court had ruled that their seniority in relation to direct recruits would depend on their initial appointment dates.
The dispute eventually reached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s Judgement
The apex court held that employees appointed through the prescribed recruitment process are generally entitled to seniority from their appointment dates. Temporary or ad hoc employees appointed outside that process cannot ordinarily claim seniority for the period before regularisation.
This means that if an individual joins a government department on a temporary basis, it does not grant them advancement over someone who has been recruited through regular process. The apex court has also ousted the notion of favouring compassionate appointees over regular, direct recruits, simply because they had joined earlier.
The court clarified the meaning of a compassionate appointment, stating that the purpose of this provision is to ease the financial burden of a family affected by the demise of an employee while in service, but it does not automatically confer a promotion.
Implications Of This Judgement On Pension Benefits
The court clarified that an employee’s past service may count towards pension benefits without giving them an advantage in seniority. For instance, an employee may receive pension-related credit for eligible service performed before regularisation but cannot automatically use those years to claim a higher position in the seniority list than regular recruits.
The court also directed that seniority between the special appointees and compassionate appointees be determined according to their respective dates of regularisation.
