After the Punjab Advocate General assured the Supreme Court of a positive resolution, the Court scheduled the next hearing for March 24, 2025, keeping the case on top priority.
NEW DELHI: Today, 5th March, The Supreme Court of India has strongly criticized the Punjab government for trying to distance itself from an assurance given in 2002 regarding the implementation of the Punjab Privately Managed Affiliated and Punjab Government Aided Colleges Pensionary Benefits Scheme, 1986. The Punjab government argued that the commitment was made by an officer and not the government itself.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan issued a show cause notice to Punjab Chief Secretary KAP Sinha, asking him to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated for failing to follow the assurance given to the High Court.
The Court observed:
“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 Shri 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. If he is of the view that some other officer is involved is responsible for the breach of undertaking, he is free to file an affidavit giving the names or other details of the officers who are responsible so that this court can initiate action against them. Notice is made returnable on 24th March.”
Additionally, the Court also issued a notice to the Deputy Director, Office of the Director for Public Instruction (Colleges), Punjab. The official had previously filed an affidavit stating that pension benefits were not granted because employees had not opted for the scheme. The Supreme Court found this statement false as the scheme had never been officially published or implemented.
Due to Punjab’s repeated failures, the Court announced that it would no longer accept oral submissions from government lawyers. Instead, all statements must be backed by affidavits from responsible officers.
During the hearing, Punjab Advocate General Gurminder Singh assured the Court that the state government would soon take positive action to resolve the matter. He stated:
“I have a prayer today for the first time, but I give an assurance that we’ll come out with something positive. I have so much say in the state—I will do something positive. Give me a week’s time. On 24th, I will come back with something positive.”
Courtroom Proceedings: Supreme Court Warns Punjab Officials
During the hearing, the Supreme Court demanded a clear answer from the Punjab Chief Secretary, who appeared via video conference.
Justice Oka warned:
“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.”
Initially hesitant, the Chief Secretary responded:
“I will have to go by whatever my lord will say.”
Justice Oka clarified that the Court was not forcing the state to comply but needed a definite answer.
The Chief Secretary remained non-committal, and Advocate General Gurminder Singh requested one week’s time, arguing that the Chief Secretary could not make a statement due to an existing legislation conflict. The Court refused additional time, forcing the Chief Secretary to confirm that the pension benefits would be granted.
Justice Oka expressed disappointment at Punjab’s repeated delays:
“The court has completely been taken for a ride.”
The Punjab Advocate General then attempted to revisit the implementation of the 1996 Scheme, but the Court firmly reminded him that the government had made repeated promises and failed to act.
Justice Oka stated:
“You are everybody! You are the state, with the power to say that statements of the Advocate General are not statements of the state. It’s such a powerful state that it is denying the correctness of the Additional Advocate General’s statement.”
The Advocate General pleaded for leniency and asked for one more week, promising a final solution.
Justice Oka firmly stated:
“Officers have to be given a signal that court cannot be taken for a ride. And if we don’t do that, we will be failing now.”
To ensure transparency in future cases, Justice Oka ruled that Punjab’s advocates will no longer be allowed to make oral submissions. He stated:
“Every time, it has to be an affidavit of the officer.”
The Advocate General agreed, saying:
“Correct, my lord. Let me come back on the 24th with something positive.”
After the Punjab Advocate General assured the Supreme Court of a positive resolution, the Court scheduled the next hearing for March 24, 2025, keeping the case on top priority.
Background of the Case
On July 26, 2001, the Punjab and Haryana High Court took note of a statement made on behalf of the Punjab government that the pension scheme would be implemented within three months. However, no action was taken.
On May 2, 2002, the Additional Advocate General, on instructions from senior officers, gave a commitment before the High Court that the scheme would be published and implemented by June 15, 2002. Based on this promise, the High Court refrained from initiating contempt proceedings at the time.
However, instead of implementing the scheme, the Punjab government introduced the Punjab Privately Managed Recognised Affiliated Aided Colleges (Pension and Contributory Provident Fund) Rules, 2002. Over the years, Punjab sought multiple adjournments, citing plans to repeal these rules. Between 2011 and 2012, the government continued giving assurances but did not follow through.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
