SC issues contempt notice to Punjab Chief Secretary as state fails to implement 1996 pension scheme

Upset over the Punjab Government’s failure to implement a three-decade-old pensionary benefits scheme in the state, the Supreme Court on Wednesday issued a contempt notice to the state’s Chief Secretary asking him to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him.

“The court has completely been taken for a ride,” a Bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice N Kotiswar Singh said, taking strong exception to the state government's attempt to distance itself from an undertaking given by its Additional Advocate General in 2002.

"In spite of repeated undertakings given to the high court, compliance has not been made by the state government. Therefore, we issue show-cause notice to KAP Sinha, chief secretary, State of Punjab calling upon him to show-cause why action under the Contempt Of Courts Act 1971 (both civil and criminal) should not be initiated against him," the Bench said.

“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,” Justice Oka said.

“I will have to go by whatever My Lord will say,” the Chief Secretary – who was present via video conference -- told the Bench which made it clear that it was not compelling the Punjab Government and was seeking an answer.

The top court issued the contempt notice after the Chief Secretary remained non-committal and failed to give a clear assurance regarding implementation of the scheme.

It also issued notice to the Deputy Director, Department of Public Instruction (Colleges), Punjab, asking him to explain why contempt action should not be initiated against him for filing a false affidavit and posted the matter for further hearing on March 24.

Senior counsel PS Patwalia represented the petitioners.

Disapproving of the state's stance, the Bench said it would no longer accept any oral submissions made by lawyers on behalf of the State of Punjab and that it would insist on affidavits sworn by responsible officers.

“Repeatedly statements are made to the court and assurance is given. This is the height of it. Shamelessly we are told that these statements made by the Advocate General are by the Executive and are not by the State? This is the shameless act on the part of the government. Most shameless act,” the Bench said.

The Deputy Director’s affidavit stated that pension benefits were not granted because employees had not exercised their options under the scheme. The Bench noted the statement was incorrect as the scheme itself was never published or implemented.

The order came on an appeal filed by one Rajnish Kumar and others complaining about non-implementation of the Punjab Privately Managed Affiliated and Punjab Government Aided Colleges Pensionary Benefits Scheme, 1996.

Aggrieved by non-implementation of the scheme, the petitioners moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court before which the Punjab Government gave an undertaking that it would implement the scheme by June 15, 2002.

However, after seeking a large number of adjournments, the rules were repealed in December with retrospective effect from April 1, 1992.

Punjab Advocate General Gurminder Singh told the Bench that he will come back with something positive on the next date of hearing on implementation of the Scheme.

“I give an assurance that we'll come out with something positive. I have that much say in the state—I will do something positive. Give me a week's time. On 24th (March), I will come back with something positive,” Singh told the Bench.

As the top court pulled up the State of Punjab for attempting to distance itself from the undertaking given by its Additional Advocate General in 2002, the state government on February 18 claimed that the 2002 undertaking was by the Executive and not by the State Government.

“However, we must record here that the said order in so many words mentions that the Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Punjab, on instructions, had given an undertaking to publish and implement the Scheme by 15th June, 2002. Now, the State Government cannot put the blame on the Executive. If such an approach is adopted, courts will find it extremely difficult to accept the statements made by Law Officers of states across the Bar and courts will have to start a practice of taking affidavits of every statement which sought to be made across the Bar,” it had said.