By Legum Pacific Editorial ·
Suppose you joined as a temporary junior assistant when posts were frozen. Later, some people were appointed after a public exam. Others were taken in on compassionate grounds (hiring a dependent after a government servant dies in service). Who gets higher seniority for service records?
What does the law say?
The Tamil Nadu Service Rules include provisions on temporary appointments and on how seniority is fixed. Rule 10(a)(i) allows temporary or ad hoc appointments where an immediate need exists. Rule 48 permits compassionate appointments. Rule 2(1) defines when a person is treated as appointed to a service (for example, from the date they first discharge duty or commence prescribed probation or training). Rule 35(a) explains that seniority is normally determined by rank in the approved list or, where more than one recruitment method exists, by the date of appointment.
The State also issued government orders. A G.O. dated 14 September 1984 said compassionate appointees’ seniority could be placed among direct recruits by reference to date of appointment. Later, the State regularised temporary appointments with effect from 26 June 1984 and framed the Special Absorption Rules (1987). Clause 10 of those Special Absorption Rules dealt with seniority of special appointees and placed the direct recruits from the 1983 competitive examination above the special appointees.
What did the Supreme Court decide?
A two-judge Bench (Shree Chandrashekhar and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.) delivered the judgment on 9 October 2026. The Court gave these principal findings:
-
Direct recruits selected through the 1983 competitive examination must rank above the Special appointees who were temporary hires and later regularised under Rule 10(a)(i). The Court upheld the validity of Clause 10 of the Special Absorption Rules that places the direct recruits above those special appointees.
-
Compassionate appointees (initially taken on compassionate grounds and later regularised) cannot claim seniority over direct recruits merely because their initial temporary appointment date is earlier. The Court held that compassionate appointees do not stand on the same footing as direct recruits for seniority purposes in that respect.
-
The inter se seniority (between themselves) of compassionate appointees and special appointees should be decided by reference to the date of regularisation. The Court said that date of regularisation is an appropriate yardstick in the present situation.
The Court explained that a person appointed after a full rule-based selection generally ranks above someone who had only a temporary or ad hoc status before regularisation. The employer has power to make rules for fixing inter se seniority, and such rules cannot be struck down merely because they might cause hardship to a class of employees.
What does this mean for ordinary people and departmental HR?
If you are a direct recruit who cleared the public exam but joined later because temporary staff held the post, the Court’s ruling places you above those who were temporary and later regularised. If you are a compassionate appointee, an earlier temporary start date does not automatically put you above direct recruits. Between compassionate and special appointees, the date when your service was regularised will normally decide who ranks higher.
The Court also noted that, in earlier decisions, temporary or ad hoc service has sometimes been counted for pension purposes where the rules allow such benefit. That observation was made while distinguishing pension counting from the question of seniority ahead of direct recruits.
How does the judgment treat rules made by the employer?
The Court recognised that the employer may frame reasonable rules to fix inter se seniority of different classes of employees. Clause 10 of the Special Absorption Rules was treated as a legitimate method adopted by the State to place direct recruits above special appointees, and the Court upheld that approach.
Key points
- Direct recruits from the competitive process rank above special appointees who were temporary and later regularised.
- Compassionate appointees do not automatically outrank direct recruits by virtue of an earlier temporary appointment date.
- For comparing compassionate appointees with special appointees, the date of regularisation is the appropriate criterion.
- The employer is entitled to frame rules for inter se seniority; such rules are not invalid merely because they may cause hardship.
- The Court observed that past temporary or ad hoc service has, in some cases and where rules permit, been counted for pension purposes, but that is a distinct issue from claiming seniority over direct recruits.
Source: Supreme Court of India (official judgment) (opens in a new tab) · M. Prema v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep By Its Secretary To The Government & Ors., C.A. No. 8757 of 2013, 2026 INSC 1105