Advertisement

Top Court's Contempt Notice To Punjab Official Over 1996 Pension Scheme

A bench of Justices Abhay Oka and N Kotiswar Singh asked the chief secretary to answer why contempt proceedings should not be initiated.

Top Court's Contempt Notice To Punjab Official Over 1996 Pension Scheme
The matter would be heard again on March 24.
New Delhi:

The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued a contempt notice to the Punjab chief secretary for failing to implement a three-decade-old pensionary benefits scheme in the state.

Observing the court couldn't be taken for a ride, a bench of Justices Abhay Oka and N Kotiswar Singh asked the chief secretary to answer why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him for the violation of the undertakings.

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

The bench said if the official felt some other officer was at fault, he was "free to file an affidavit" giving the names or other details of the officers responsible for the court to initiate action.

The matter would be heard again on March 24.

The bench also issued notice to the deputy director, office of the Director for Public Instruction (Colleges), Punjab, seeking his response on why action should not be initiated against him for filing a false affidavit.

During the hearing, Punjab advocate general Gurminder Singh assured the bench of returning with something positive over the implementation of the scheme on the next date.

The court asked the chief secretary to answer in clear terms whether the state was willing to grant benefits under the scheme while warning of contempt action.

When the chief secretary failed to enunciate, the law officer sought a week's time, reasoning the officer was wary of breaching a legislation passed subsequently.

The top court was hearing an appeal filed by one Rajnish Kumar and others regarding the non-implementation of the Punjab Privately Managed Affiliated and Punjab Government Aided Colleges Pensionary Benefits Scheme, 1996.

The Punjab Privately Managed Affiliated and Punjab Government Aided Colleges Pensionary Benefits Scheme, 1996 was circulated vide memo dated December 18, 1996.

As the scheme was not being implemented, the petitions were moved in the Punjab and Haryana High Court for directions.

The high court let off the Punjab government from action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 after an undertaking was put forth by the state that the scheme would be published and implemented by June 15, 2002.

The top court in its February 18 order observed after giving undertakings on more than a couple of occasions to the high court to implement the scheme, a lot of time was wasted by the state government, firstly by framing rules and then by seeking adjournments from the high court on the ground that the proposal for repealing the rules was pending.

On March 16, 2012, after over a decade had elapsed, the state government assured the high court to explore the possibility of accepting the applications of the scheme of the year 1996.

"After seeking a large number of adjournments, on January 12, 2012, the rules were repealed. Instead of abiding by the undertakings given to the high court, the state government presented a bill to the legislature on December 18, 2012 for the repeal of the 1996 scheme with retrospective effect from April 1, 1992," the top court had noted.

The apex court was informed that the undertaking given to the high court, recorded in the order dated May 2, 2002, was by the executive and not 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 June 15, 2002," it said.

The state government, the top court said, couldn't blame the executive.

"If such an approach is adopted, courts will find it extremely difficult to accept the statements made by the law officers of the states across the Bar and courts will have to start a practice of taking affidavits of every statement which is sought to be made across the Bar," it added.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Track Latest News Live on NDTV.com and get news updates from India and around the world

Follow us: