[ad_1]
Upset over the Punjab Authorities’s failure to implement a three-decade-old pensionary advantages scheme within the state, the Supreme Court docket on Wednesday issued a contempt discover to the state’s Chief Secretary asking him to clarify why contempt proceedings shouldn’t be initiated towards him.
“The courtroom has fully been taken for a journey,” a Bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice N Kotiswar Singh mentioned, taking robust exception to the state authorities’s try to distance itself from an endeavor given by its Further Advocate Normal in 2002.
“Regardless of repeated undertakings given to the excessive courtroom, compliance has not been made by the state authorities. Due to this fact, we situation show-cause discover to KAP Sinha, chief secretary, State of Punjab, calling upon him to show-cause why motion below the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 (each civil and legal) shouldn’t be initiated towards him,” the Bench mentioned.
“Both immediately you make a press release that you’re granting the petitioners reduction, or we should always situation contempt proceedings. Let officers go to jail, and thereafter we are going to hear you,” Justice Oka mentioned.
“I should go by no matter My Lord will say,” the Chief Secretary, who was current through video convention, informed the Bench which made it clear that it was not compelling the Punjab Authorities and was looking for a solution.
Senior counsel PS Patwalia represented the petitioners.
The highest courtroom issued the contempt discover after the Chief Secretary remained non-committal and failed to offer a transparent assurance relating to implementation of the scheme.
It additionally issued discover to the Deputy Director, Public Instruction (Faculties), Punjab, asking him to clarify why contempt motion shouldn’t be initiated towards him for submitting a false affidavit and posted the matter for additional listening to on March 24.
The Deputy Director’s affidavit acknowledged that pension advantages weren’t granted as a result of staff had not exercised their choices below the scheme. The Bench famous the assertion was incorrect because the scheme itself was by no means printed or carried out.
The order got here on an enchantment filed by one Rajnish Kumar and others complaining about non-implementation of the Punjab Privately Managed Affiliated and Punjab Authorities Aided Faculties Pensionary Advantages Scheme, 1996.
Aggrieved by non-implementation of the scheme, the petitioners moved the Punjab and Haryana Excessive Court docket earlier than which the Punjab Authorities gave an endeavor that it could implement the scheme by June 15, 2002.
Nonetheless, after looking for numerous adjournments, the foundations have been repealed in December with retrospective impact from April 1, 1992.
Disapproving of the state’s stance, the Bench mentioned it could not settle for any oral submissions made by attorneys on behalf of the State of Punjab and that it could insist on affidavits sworn by accountable officers.
Punjab Advocate Normal Gurminder Singh informed the Bench that he would come again with one thing optimistic on the following date of listening to on implementation of the scheme.
“I’ve a prayer immediately for the primary time…I give an assurance that we’ll come out with one thing optimistic. I’ve that a lot say within the state—I’ll do one thing optimistic. Give me every week’s time. On 24th (March), I’ll come again with one thing optimistic,” Singh informed the Bench.
As the highest courtroom pulled up the State of Punjab for trying to distance itself from the endeavor given by its Further Advocate Normal in 2002, the state authorities on February 18 claimed that the 2002 endeavor was by the Government and never by the state authorities.
“Nonetheless, we should report right here that the mentioned order in so many phrases mentions that the Further Advocate Normal showing for the State of Punjab, on directions, had given an endeavor to publish and implement the scheme by 15th June, 2002. Now, the State Authorities can’t put the blame on the Government. If such an strategy is adopted, courts will discover it extraordinarily tough to just accept the statements made by legislation officers of states throughout the Bar and courts should begin a follow of taking affidavits of each assertion which sought to be made throughout the Bar,” it had mentioned.
[ad_2]
