Today, On 14th August, The Supreme Court criticized the Gujarat government for appealing a High Court ruling that favoured a sweeper. The Court questioned the rationale behind the decision to challenge the High Court’s order and demanded details about the officials who advised the State to pursue the appeal in the Supreme Court.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed strong disapproval of the Gujarat government‘s decision to challenge a High Court order that regularized the services of a sweeper.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B Varale requested the State to provide details of the officers who recommended filing the appeal in the Supreme Court against the High Court’s decision.
Justice Nath stated,
“We want to know specifically which officer advised filing this special leave petition (SLP) against the High Court’s decisions,”
The Bench was reviewing the State’s appeal against a September 2023 Gujarat High Court ruling that awarded benefits to a sweeper who had served the government for over a decade.
The Court criticized the State for involving the sweeper in litigation before the Supreme Court instead of adhering to the High Court‘s order.
The Court remarked in its order,
“Instead of complying with the order, the State has chosen to drag a sweeper into this litigation. We are now requesting an affidavit from the officer who advised filing this Special Leave Petition,”
In a similar case, the Supreme Court had previously imposed a Rs. 1 lakh fine on the Tamil Nadu government in December 2022 for unnecessarily prolonging litigation over the pensionary dues of a retired sweeper.
The Court’s order strongly suggested that the costs could be recovered from those responsible for the unjustified delay.
The Supreme Court‘s strong words in this case serve as a reminder to state governments about the importance of adhering to judicial rulings, especially those that impact the livelihoods of lower-level employees. It also sends a clear message about the need for responsible decision-making within the government, ensuring that justice is not only done but is also seen to be done without unnecessary delays or challenges.