The Supreme Court has expressed its strong disapproval over the non-implementation of the Punjab Privately Managed Affiliated and Punjab Government Aided Colleges Pensionary Benefits Scheme, 1986, by the State of Punjab, despite repeated assurances given to the High Court.
The Bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice N Kotiswar Singh further pulled up the State on Tuesday for shying away from an undertaking given to the High Court by its Additional Advocate General in 2002, assuring that the scheme would be implemented soon.
The Punjab government later claimed that the undertaking was given by the officer and did not represent the State’s stand on the matter.
The Apex Court issued notice to Punjab Chief Secretary KAP Sinha, asking him to explain why action (both civil and criminal) should not be taken against him under the Contempt Of Courts Act 1971.
In case the government officer felt that some other officer was involved in the breach of undertaking, the Chief Secretary was free to file an affidavit giving the names or other details of the officers responsible so that the Court could initiate action against them, said the Bench.
It further issued showcause notice to the Deputy Director, Office of the Director for Public Instruction (Colleges), Punjab, asking him to explain why action should not be initiated against him for filing a false affidavit before the court stating that pension benefits were not granted because employees had not exercised their options under the scheme.
The top court of the country observed that the statement was incorrect, since the scheme itself was never published or implemented.
Expressing its strong disapproval to the state’s stance, the Bench said it would no longer accept any oral submissions made by lawyers on behalf of the Punjab government and would require affidavits sworn by responsible officers.
On July 26, 2001, the Punjab and Haryana High Court took note of a statement made on behalf of the State, assuring that the scheme would be implemented within three months.
On May 2, 2002, the Additional Advocate General, upon instructions from the officers present, made an undertaking before the High Court that the scheme would be published and implemented by June 15, 2002. The High Court, relying on this assurance, refrained from initiating contempt proceedings.
However, instead of implementing the scheme, the State of Punjab later introduced the Punjab Privately Managed Recognised Affiliated Aided Colleges (Pension and Contributory Provident Fund) Rules, 2002.
Over the years, the state repeatedly sought adjournments before the High Court, citing efforts to repeal these rules. Despite multiple assurances recorded in court orders between 2011 and 2012, the Punjab government ultimately presented a bill in the legislature on December 18, 2012, to repeal the 1996 scheme with retrospective effect from April 1, 1992.
On February 18, 2025, the State claimed that the undertaking recorded in the 2002 order was by the Executive and not by the Punjab government.
The Court then summoned the Chief Secretary, saying 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.
The state government could not put the blame on the Executive. If such an approach was adopted, the Courts would find it extremely difficult to accept the statements made by the Law Officers of the States across the Bar and the Courts would have to start a practice of taking six affidavits of every statement sought to be made across the Bar, it added.
The Chief Secretary eventually said that the benefit would be granted.
Noting that the state made multiple assurances for the implementation of the 1996 scheme, but did not follow through, the top court of the country said the Punjab government has completely taken the courts for a ride.
It further berated the State for misleading the courts multiple times, first by giving an undertaking, then by introducing rules, then by promising to withdraw them, and later by enacting a law to repeal the scheme.
Punjab Advocate General Gurminder Singh urged the court to examine the legislation and suggested that everything should be reconsidered from the perspective of fully implementing the scheme.
He ultimately assured the Apex Court that he would come back with something positive on the next date in terms of implementation of the Scheme.
After the assurance by the Advocate General, the Court kept the matter on top of the list on March 24, 2025.