New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday stayed a Madras High Court order that had quashed Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay’s decision to provide government jobs to relatives of people who died in the Karur stampede last year.
A Bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran issued notices to the Tamil Nadu Chief Secretary and other respondents while hearing a petition challenging the government’s decision.
The Supreme Court’s intervention provides temporary relief to the state government’s policy of offering employment to eligible family members of those who lost their lives in the tragedy.
Supreme Court questions challenge to government policy
During the hearing, the Supreme Court questioned the basis on which the petitioner had challenged the government’s decision.
The Bench observed that the government could consider providing employment to a family member when a person dies in a tragedy, particularly when the deceased was the sole earning or supporting member of the family.
The judges questioned whether the government should be prevented from offering employment to a son or daughter in circumstances where the only member of a family died in the tragedy.
The observations came while the court was considering the challenge to the government order.
Notice issued to Tamil Nadu government
The Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran issued notice to the Tamil Nadu Chief Secretary and other parties concerned.
The notices seek responses from the respondents on the challenge before the Supreme Court.
The court’s decision to stay the Madras High Court order means that the earlier ruling quashing the government’s employment decision will remain stayed pending further proceedings before the apex court.
The matter is expected to be examined further after the responses from the state government and other respondents are received.
Madras High Court had quashed government order
The Supreme Court’s intervention follows a July 27 order of the Madras High Court, which had quashed the Tamil Nadu government’s decision to provide government employment to relatives of those who died in the Karur stampede.
The High Court had expressed concern that allowing such appointments could open the door to similar demands from other groups.
A division bench comprising Justices CV Karthikeyan and R Sakthivel had observed that the needs of numerous people already waiting for compassionate appointments in government departments could not be overlooked.
The court had therefore held that it was not appropriate to make the appointments contemplated under the government order.
Karur tragedy at centre of dispute
The government employment policy relates to families who lost members in the stampede at Karur last year.
The tragedy left families dealing with the loss of their relatives, with the government subsequently announcing employment assistance for eligible family members.
The decision was intended to provide support to affected families and help them deal with the economic consequences of losing their family members.
However, the policy was challenged before the Madras High Court on the grounds that such appointments could affect the established system of compassionate employment and create demands for similar treatment in other circumstances.
High Court raised concern over compassionate appointments
The Madras High Court had placed emphasis on the existing pool of people waiting for compassionate appointments.
Compassionate appointments are generally intended to provide financial support to families facing hardship after the death of an employee in government service.
The High Court was concerned that making special appointments outside the established framework could lead to a large number of similar claims.
The court had accordingly quashed the order issued by the Tamil Nadu government.
The Supreme Court, however, has now stayed that decision after questioning whether the state government could adopt a policy to support families affected by a major tragedy.
Supreme Court considers plight of affected families
During Friday’s hearing, the Supreme Court’s observations focused on the circumstances of families who may have lost their only earning or supporting member in the tragedy.
The Bench questioned whether the government could provide employment to a son or daughter in such cases.
The observations indicate that the apex court is considering the issue not merely from the perspective of existing compassionate appointment rules but also in the context of the government’s ability to formulate a special policy for families affected by an exceptional tragedy.
The final decision will depend on the arguments and responses presented during the proceedings.
Policy dispute now before apex court
The dispute has now moved back to the Supreme Court after the Madras High Court’s July 27 ruling.
The apex court’s stay does not amount to a final decision on the validity of the Tamil Nadu government’s policy. The court will hear the parties before deciding the broader legal questions involved.
The case could have implications for how governments formulate special employment assistance policies for families affected by mass casualty incidents.
It also raises questions about the relationship between special government policies and established compassionate appointment mechanisms.
Further hearing awaited
With notices issued to the Tamil Nadu Chief Secretary and other respondents, the matter will proceed before the Supreme Court.
The state government will have an opportunity to explain the basis and scope of its decision to offer government jobs to eligible relatives of the victims.
The petitioners challenging the policy will also present their arguments on why the special appointments should not be permitted.
Until the Supreme Court takes a final view, the Madras High Court’s order quashing the government’s decision remains stayed.