Supreme Court Pulls Up Punjab for Breach of 2002 Undertaking on Pension Scheme

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of the Punjab State Government’s conduct regarding its failure to implement the Punjab Privately Managed Affiliated and Punjab Government Aided Colleges Pensionary Benefits Scheme, 1986. The Court pulled up the state for attempting to distance itself from an undertaking given by its Additional Advocate General in 2002, which assured the Court that the state would implement the scheme. The state had argued that the undertaking was made by the officer and not by the Punjab Government.

Contempt Proceedings Considered

A bench comprising Justice Abhay Oka and Justice N Kotiswar Singh issued a show cause notice to KAP Sinha, the Chief Secretary of Punjab, asking him to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him for failing to uphold the undertaking. The Court stressed that, despite repeated assurances made by the state, compliance had not been made, and it was unacceptable for the state to blame the officer for the breach.

The bench remarked, “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.”

False Affidavit by Deputy Director

The Court also issued a notice to the Deputy Director, Office of the Director for Public Instruction (Colleges), Punjab, for submitting a false affidavit before the Court. The affidavit falsely stated that pension benefits had not been granted because employees had not exercised their options under the scheme. However, the Court noted that the scheme itself had never been implemented or published, which made the affidavit's statement misleading.

Court’s Displeasure and the Need for Accountability

Justice Oka expressed dissatisfaction with the state’s stance, declaring that oral submissions from Punjab’s lawyers would no longer be accepted. Moving forward, the Court demanded that affidavits be filed by responsible officers of the state to ensure accountability and to avoid further delays. The bench emphasized that officers must take responsibility for their actions, as the Court was no longer willing to accept the state’s evasions and false assurances.

Advocate General’s Assurance

During the hearing, the Punjab Advocate General, Gurminder Singh, assured the Court that he would present a positive solution regarding the implementation of the 1986 Pension Scheme at the next hearing. He asked for a week's time to come up with something substantial, stating, “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.”

Background of the Case

The dispute dates back to July 26, 2001, when the Punjab and Haryana High Court had noted the Punjab Government’s assurance to implement the pension scheme within three months. However, no action was taken. On May 2, 2002, the Additional Advocate General, representing the state, assured the High Court that the scheme would be implemented by June 15, 2002. Despite this assurance, the state failed to comply and instead introduced the Punjab Privately Managed Recognised Affiliated Aided Colleges (Pension and Contributory Provident Fund) Rules, 2002. Over the years, the state repeatedly sought adjournments and failed to implement the original pension scheme.

In 2012, the state introduced legislation to repeal the 1996 scheme with retrospective effect from April 1, 1992. However, on February 18, 2025, the Punjab Government claimed that the undertaking made by the Additional Advocate General in 2002 was executive in nature, and not binding on the state government.

Court’s Direct Approach

During the proceedings, Justice Oka questioned whether the state would grant relief to the petitioners under the pension scheme. The Chief Secretary of Punjab, who appeared via video conference, hesitated initially but eventually confirmed that the benefits would be granted. However, Justice Oka remained frustrated, remarking, “The court has completely been taken for a ride.”

The bench criticized the Punjab Government for misleading the Court multiple times: by giving the undertaking, introducing rules, promising to repeal them, and then enacting new legislation to override the scheme. Justice Oka pointed out that the Court could not let the government continue misleading the judiciary.

Next Steps

The matter has been listed for hearing on March 24, 2025. The Punjab Advocate General assured the Court that he would present a positive solution and address the implementation of the 1986 Pension Scheme.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court has sent a strong message to the Punjab Government and its officials, making it clear that failure to honor judicial undertakings and evade responsibility will not be tolerated. The state has been given one last opportunity to resolve the issue by March 24, 2025, and provide pensionary benefits to the concerned employees as per the long-pending scheme.