Supreme Court raps Punjab Government for reneging on pension scheme undertakings

The Supreme Court has admonished the state of Punjab for repeatedly wasting its time and reneging on undertakings given to the courts regarding the implementation of a three-decade-old pensionary benefits scheme. Taking a stern view, the court directed Punjab Chief Secretary and Deputy Director, Office of Director Public Instructions (Colleges), to appear via video conference on March 5.

Advertisement

“After giving the undertakings on more than two occasions to the high court to implement the scheme, a lot of time was wasted by the state government”, the bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan asserted.

The censure came on a petition filed by Rajnish Kumar and other petitioners concerning the non-implementation of the Punjab Privately Managed Affiliated and Punjab Government Aided Colleges Pensionary Benefits Scheme, 1996. The scheme was circulated through a memorandum dated December 18, 1996, but remained unimplemented.

The petitioners were represented by senior advocates P.S. Patwalia, Puneet Jindal and Gourav Agrawal.

The bench noted that the high court on July 26, 2001, did not pass formal directions on a petition filed in 1996 after a government counsel assured that the scheme would be finalised within three months. But the Principal Secretary, Higher Education, appeared before the high court on May 2, 2002, and expressed regret for the order’s non-compliance in its true spirit.

The court “let off the government from action under the Contempt of Courts Act”, following a fresh undertaking that the scheme would be published and implemented by June 15, 2002. “The state government escaped from the action for contempt by giving the undertaking. Thereafter, the undertaking was never abided by the state government. The orders passed in the subsequent petitions show that the state government came out with another ploy,” the bench observed.

In a subsequent move, the government introduced the Punjab Privately Managed Recognised Affiliated Aided Colleges (Pension and Contributory Provident Fund) Rules, 2002, on July 9, 2002, affecting the original scheme. This led to a second round of litigation.

On July 29, 2011, the government counsel assured the high court that the 2002 Rules were likely to be withdrawn. Similar assurances were recorded on September 30, 2011, November 4, 2011, and December 2, 2011, with the government repeatedly seeking adjournments on the pretext that the repeal process was under consideration.

More than a decade after the initial assurance, the rules were repealed on January 12, 2012. However, instead of implementing the 1996 scheme, the state introduced a Bill in the Legislature on December 18, 2012, repealing the scheme with retrospective effect from April 1, 1992.

The bench observed a submission was made before the court that the undertaking recorded in the high court order dated May 2, 2002, was given by the executive and not by the state. “Now, the state government cannot put the blame on the Executive. If such an approach is adopted, the courts will find it extremely difficult to accept the statements made by the law officers of the states across the Bar and the courts will have to start a practice of taking affidavits of every statement which is sought to be made across the Bar,” the bench observed

The Supreme Court also took exception to the government’s latest stand in a counter affidavit submitted by Deputy Director Surinder Paul, claiming that options under the scheme were not exercised. Terming this as a “completely false statement”, the court noted that the scheme was to be published and implemented by June 15, 2002. As such, the question of stakeholders exercising options did not arise. “We deprecate the practice of the state government of resiling from the undertakings given to the court time and again and filing a counter affidavit taking a false stand,” the bench stated.

Before passing an order “prosecuting the officer who has filed the counter affidavit”, the Supreme Court directed him and the Chief Secretary to appear before it through videoconference.