Punjab: Panchayat Department Director issued notice over contempt of court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, January 13

Sita Devi, 91, is still waiting for the authorities in Punjab to open the chapter of justice. More than six years have lapsed since the craft teacher’s plea for counting her entire service as qualifying for pension purposes was allowed. But substantive compliance of the order is yet to be made.

Acting on nonagenarian’s plea, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a show-cause notice to the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, asking him why he should not be held guilty and punished for contempt of court.

Taking up the matter, Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan asserted six years had already lapsed, but substantive compliance of the order was not shown by the respondents. It amounted to willful disobedience of the high court order, warranting further action against respondent-Director under Section 12 the Contempt of Courts Act.

Issuing the show-cause notice, Justice Sangwan asserted the Supreme Court in the case of “Maninderjit Singh Bitta versus the Union of India” had held that inordinate delay in complying with the court order was to be viewed seriously.

Justice Sangwan also granted last opportunity on the state counsel’s request for doing the needful by January 31, “failing which respondent- Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, shall remain present in person before this court on the next date of hearing”.

Before parting with the case, Justice Sangwan observed the contempt petition was pending since 2016, while taking note of the counsel’s submissions that the petitioner was initially appointed on ad-hoc basis in 1962 in Panchayat Samiti, Zira.

Her services were regularised on December 23, 1978. She was later allowed to cross the efficiency bar and ultimately retired on October 31, 2000, on attaining the age of superannuation.

Her claim was that the ad-hoc working period from 1962 to 1978 was required to be counted for fixing the pension, which was not done in terms of the specific directions by the High Court.

Justice Sangwan asserted: “A perusal of the orders passed in the contempt petition would reflect that the time was granted repeatedly to the respondents over a period of six years for complying with the order. However, the same has not been done on one pretext or the other.”

Justice Sangwan also took note of the state counsel’s contention that the petitioner’s service record from 1962 to 1978 was not available with the department.

Justice Sangwan added the court, in order dated March 23, 2022, had observed that the respondents were taking a stand contrary to the one in the writ petition, wherein no such plea was taken that the petitioner had not worked from 1962 till the time her services were regularised.

Failed to comply with HC order

The nonagenarian’s plea for counting her entire service as qualifying for pension was allowed six years ago, but substantive compliance of the order is yet to be made