https://youtu.be/wxDPrVF5JDk?si=2bPkBJwStuv7UBhk [27/07, 20:07] sekarreporter1: The Madras High Court, Madurai bench on Monday (July 27) struck down a Government Order passed by the Tamil Nadu government giving compas

[27/07, 20:07] sekarreporter1: The Madras High Court, Madurai bench on Monday (July 27) struck down a Government Order passed by the Tamil Nadu government giving compassionate appointment to the families of those who lost their lives in the Karur stampede tragedy in September last year.

A division bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice R Sakthivel, noted that the appointment was violative of Article 14 ad 16. The bench said that there were many who were waiting to get compassionate appointment in every government department and it was not appropriate to overlook their needs and provide employment to the families in the present case.

" This is all the more relevant to not just everyone seeking employment but also those standing in the waiting list and who have lost their family in harness. When there is a waiting list, it is not appropriate to overlook their needs and extend what is termed as succor to family members of the Karur incident...We hold that these appointments are in direct violation of the guarantee to a citizen of this country under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution," the court said.
The court also noted that though the State had claimed to have passed the orders in exercise of its administrative powers under Article 162 of the Constitution, such powers had to be exercised within the rigours of the Constitution.

"Exercise of executive power must be within the constitutional limits. If executive action were to be left unfettered and given free hand, chaos will reign," the court said.

The court also pointed out that if compassionate appointment was permitted in the present case, it would only open floodgates for various others to seek such employment. The court gave examples of a firework accident and motor accidents, where even though the loss of life may be due to state inaction, the victims were not given compassionate appointments but only ex gratia payments. The court added that if such compassionate appointment were to be permitted, the state would have to provide employment in the above cases also.

The court also wondered why, instead of providing employment, the state had not considered providing technical skills to the deserving families, which would then help in creating entrepreneurs, leaders, and self-sufficient individuals in the families.

"We wonder why the govt could not have extended training in skills and entrepreneurship for deserving members of families. The govt wiuld be creating leaders, entrepreneurs, self-sufficient individuals in each family who can later provide employment to others. The government can bear the expense of such technical courses," the court said.

The court underlines that public employment could not be given away by the State but had to be earned and its value respected.

"Public employment is not to be thrown away by the State. It has to be earned. Its value has to be realised. Its importance is to be cherished. There are many who wait seeking employment," the court said.

While the court agreed that it was passing the order without hearing those who were given employment, the court observed that in its earlier order, it had made it clear that the employment would be subject to judicial review.

It may be noted that on July 10, the bench had permitted the state government, led by CM Vijay's Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party, to give government jobs to families of victims who lost their lives in the Karur stampede tragedy in September last year. The bench, however, said that the appointments would be temporary and subject to judicial review.

The bench had also impleaded the Member Secretary of the Public Service Commission and had called for a report regarding the guidelines to be followed while making compassionate appointments and whether such guidelines were followed in the present case. The bench had also expressed its intention to hear the main matters within this month, before the prospective employees received their first salary.

The court made the observations in a PIL by Theeran Thirumurugan, a lawyer from Madurai, challenging the decision of the newly formed government, headed by CM Vijay's Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party, to provide government jobs to the families of 41 persons who lost their lives in the Karur stampede tragedy in September last year.

Karur stampede not a case warranting compassionate appointments

The petitioners argued that the petition was only challenging the validity of State action and classifying it as rehabilitative measure. It was submitted that there was already a GO in force in Tamil Nadu which has to be followed for giving compassionate appointment.

It was submitted that the appointment should withstand constitutional mandate. It was submitted that the examples given by the State–Lilavati murder which was a political murder, and another of Sterlite firing which pertained to police excesses, in both the cases the law states that SC/ST people should be given appointment

The petitioners argued that the State had not explained how the Karur stampede incident falls into the same box.

"There are a number of aspirants in Tamil Nadu thinking they'll get an opportunity. Here it's given to someone else for welfare scheme. But welfare scheme should follow Constitutional mandate. Have to see if the government is providing employment as per the existing scheme or creating a new scheme," the counsel said.

It was submitted that in previous similar cases, only ex gratia compensation was given; wherein in the previous incidents the State was involved in some way or another.

But there was nothing like that in the present case, the petitioners said. Notably the TVK came to power after the conclusion of the legislative assembly elections in May this year.

It was argued that the eligibility for appointment on compassionate grounds, however there was no such condition in the present case has Karur stampede was not due to natural causes, but due to negligence of respondent no. 3–The Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms department.

Exceptional circumstance, appointment given to aid grieving families

Meanwhile appearing for the State government Advocate General Vijay Narayan, opposed one of the plea's and said that from the arguments advanced by the petitioner it appeared that it was canvassing the case of aspirants to government jobs. He said that if this was the case, then genuine aspirants should have filed the plea.

"There seems to be some confusion as to whether this is a PIL or is it for a substantive prayer for appointments...In another case which an advocate has filed that will be treated as PIL," the AG said.

He said that this was a case where exceptional appointments were called for. He said that it was standard practice to treat such people as a distinct and defined class.

"It is really unfortunate that my learned friends do not have enough humanity in public interest...rather their clients to not have enough humanity to extend a helping hand to the families of 41 persons who died for no fault of theirs out of an accident... There cannot be rules in situation like this because these are all totally unanticipated situations which occured due to combination of events, certain they deserve some succor. Apart from money a job will sustain the family in the long run. In these circumstances a GO was passed, " the AG said.
He said these were people who were given jobs at the lowest level, just to give them some relief to the family at the time of distress when bread winner of the family possibly suffered the terrible tragedy.

He said that this was not a case of political opportunism, as if the party in power–TVK is trying to score brownie points, as was the case sought to be made out in the present case. He further in service matters, only a rival to the post can challenge the successful appointments, and a PIL would not be maintainable.

The AG argued that the present appointments were a conscious policy decision made by the State using its executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution to extend remedial measures to mitigate the sufferings of the families of the deceased victims. He argued that unlike hooch tragedy or other cases, the victims in the present case were unsuspecting victims who had gone to attend a public meeting and the state could not be a bystander to the plight of such persons. The AG insisted that money alone was not a just compensation for a person who had lost a valuable member of their family.

"This being challenged is a matter of regret. They stand on a completely distinct and defined class. It is affirmative action to make people equal. One class of people who are far below others, to make them equal," the AG said.

Background

The petitioner had sought directions to the Chief Secretary, Additional Chief Secretary, Secretary (Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department), Secretary (Home Department), Secretary (Revenue and Disaster Management Department), and the District Collector (Karur) to forbear from issuing or implementing any Government appointment order arising from the Karur stampede, till proceedings before the Supreme Court attain finality.

The petitioner submitted that there is no uniform policy for providing permanent government employment is such cases of tragedy. It was argued that when Government employment is provided in respect to one incident, it would raise serious issues relating to equality and equal opportunity under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The petitioner had also argued that since the proceedings in connection with the Karur tragedy were pending before the Supreme Court, granting irreversible administrative benefits would result in avoidable legal and administrative consequences. The petitioner thus sought directions to the authorities not to act upon such appointment orders till the matter had attained finality in the Supreme Court.

When the court heard the matter on July 10, the State submitted that grant of compassionate appointment in cases of tragedy was not new and that the state had similarly granted compassionate appointments to victims of Thoothukudi police firing. To this, the court had orally remarked that there was a distinction between the incidents as Thoothukudi police firing was an incident of police excess by the State, whereas in the Karur stampede case, there was no police excess by State.

Case Title: Theeran Thirumurugan @ Thirumurugan v The Chief Secretary

Case No: WP(MD) 19539 of 2026