Temporary Compassionate Appointments Approved by Madras High Court
The Madras High Court has given the green light for the Tamil Nadu government to provide employment on a compassionate basis to the families affected by the tragic Karur stampede. However, the court made it clear that these appointments will remain temporary until further judicial review. This decision came during the hearing of the case Theeran Thirumurugan Vs Chief Secretary.
Judicial Scrutiny on Government Policy
A bench comprising Justices CV Karthikeyan and R Sakthivel expressed their intent to scrutinize whether such appointments could be sanctioned without a consistent government policy for public tragedy victims. The court allowed a government function scheduled at 3 PM on Friday to proceed, emphasizing that the appointees should not receive their initial salaries until the case is revisited.
Interim Orders and Future Proceedings
The court remarked, “It may be extremely narrow for the Court to intervene in a policy decision. But we would permit the function to proceed further with a condition that the employment would only be on a temporary basis, subject to further review.” The proceedings are set to continue on July 21.
Government’s Obligation to Justify Appointments
The court mandated the state to submit a detailed report outlining the guidelines for these appointments and affirming compliance with existing conditions. It underscored the principle that public employment should be accessible to all qualified candidates and should not be unjustly restricted.
CBI Involvement and Legal Challenges
The High Court also involved the Member Secretary of the Supreme Court-appointed supervisory committee overseeing the CBI investigation into the Karur stampede, as a respondent. The court’s directives were in response to petitions contesting the state’s decision to provide jobs to the families of the 41 victims of the September 2025 stampede at a Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam rally, which is currently under CBI investigation.
Contentions and Constitutional Concerns
Petitioners argued that compassionate appointments are usually reserved for dependents of government employees who die during service, under strict regulations. They claimed that offering these appointments to public tragedy victims without a clear policy undermines the constitutional guarantees of equality and equal opportunity in public employment, as per Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Government’s Defense and Precedents
The state government defended its stance by highlighting previous instances where similar appointments were made following tragedies, asserting that the measure aims to support families who lost their primary earners. It noted that a similar application had been withdrawn from the Supreme Court, allowing for alternate legal remedies.
Impact of Pending Investigation
Additionally, petitioners voiced concerns that providing employment amidst an ongoing CBI investigation could potentially influence key witnesses, despite the families already receiving ex gratia compensation.
