An Allowance Is Not Justice — It's a Holding Pattern

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has issued a monthly allowance for dismissed non-teaching officials at government-aided schools, with ₹25,000 and ₹20,000 allowances going to Group C and Group D employees, respectively, till the case gets judicially disposed. The cost to the state would be ₹15.3 crore a month. The employees lost their jobs after a Supreme Court order in the SSC recruitment case, and the state intends to move a review petition by early May. Though considered a relief of sorts, a section of employees is still upset, citing they're being paid allowances, even as others accept the development as a step forward.

Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee's declaration of a monthly ex gratia payment to the dismissed Group C and Group D employees in state-aided schools is a temporary balm to an open wound. But don't be fooled—this is not justice, it is damage control, and it is uncomfortably raising questions about governance, responsibility, and equity.

Let's be precise about the figures. More than 7,000 support staff were rendered jobless after the Supreme Court directive in the SSC recruitment scam. The top court, on conclusive evidence of widespread irregularities, took the drastic measure of invalidating these appointments—not on a whim, but to safeguard the integrity of a flawed recruitment process. The state, which had not ensured transparency in the first instance, is now firefighting the consequences.

The grant—Rs 25,000 for Group C and Rs 20,000 for Group D employees—is a huge expense of Rs 15.3 crore a month. While one can admire the government's desire not to let there be a humanitarian crisis, we cannot let this fiscal largesse take the place of accountability. These workers, such as clerk Satyajit Dhar who aptly remarked, "This is not salary, it's allowance," are being paid to wait and not work. It's like distributing umbrellas once the storm has gone, never having repaired the roof.

Worse is the failure to differentiate between tainted and untainted candidates, which not only goes against the SC's position but also compromises the integrity of future hiring. Banerjee's observation that no list of tainted names was filed may be politically prudent, but legally and ethically, it adds to the murkiness.

What is the message in this? That irregular appointments, having been made, can be "managed" politically despite rejection by the courts? Or that institutional deception can be covered up with packages of compensation?

The state's decision to move a review petition is welcome, but one hopes it is done in the spirit of legal propriety, not political opportunism. In the meantime, for the thousands of affected people, the allowance provides survival—not certainty, not dignity, and certainly not justice.

Until then, this is not closure—it's just reprieve