The Supreme Court issued a contempt notice to Punjab Chief Secretary KAP Sinha on Wednesday for the state government’s failure to implement a pensionary benefits scheme from 1996. The court strongly disapproved of the state’s attempt to distance itself from an undertaking given by its Additional Advocate General in 2002. “The court has completely been taken for a ride,” stated a Bench comprising Justice Abhay Oka and Justice N Kotiswar Singh.
Despite repeated undertakings to the high court, compliance has not been achieved. The court is now calling upon the Chief Secretary to show cause why action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (civil and criminal), should not be taken. “Either today you are making a statement that you are granting the petitioners relief, or we should issue contempt proceedings.
Let officers go to jail, and thereafter, we will hear you,” remarked Justice Oka. The Chief Secretary, who attended via video conference, remained non-committal, prompting the court to issue the contempt notice. The court also notified the Deputy Director of the Department of Public Instruction (Colleges), Punjab, asking him to explain why contempt action should not be initiated against him for filing a false affidavit.
Contempt notice issued in pension scheme
The matter has been scheduled for further hearing on March 24. Senior counsel PS Patwalia represented the petitioners aggrieved by the non-implementation of the Punjab Privately Managed Affiliated and Punjab Government Aided Colleges Pensionary Benefits Scheme, 1996.
The petitioners had previously moved to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, where the Punjab Government provided an undertaking to implement the scheme by June 15, 2002. However, after multiple adjournments, the rules were repealed with retrospective effect from April 1, 1992. Punjab Advocate General Gurminder Singh assured the Bench that he would return with a positive response at the next hearing on the scheme’s implementation.
“Give me a week. On the 24th (March), I will come back with something positive,” Singh told the Bench. The Supreme Court’s order highlights the gravity of the situation, as the state government attempts to distance itself from the 2002 undertaking by claiming it was made by the Executive and not the State Government.
“Courts will find it extremely difficult to accept the statements made by Law Officers of states across the Bar and will have to start a practice of taking affidavits of every statement which sought to be made across the Bar,” the Bench noted. The court’s insistence on accountability underscores its determination to see the long-standing issue resolved.
Image Credits: Photo by KATRIN BOLOVTSOVA on Pexels
