The Supreme Courtroom on Wednesday issued a contempt discover to Punjab chief secretary KAP Sinha for failing to implement a three-decade-old pensionary advantages scheme within the state.
The Supreme Courtroom on Wednesday issued a contempt discover to Punjab chief secretary KAP Sinha for failing to implement a three-decade-old pensionary advantages scheme within the state. (HT file picture)
Observing the court docket couldn’t be taken for a experience, a bench of Justices Abhay Oka and N Kotiswar Singh requested the chief secretary to reply why contempt proceedings shouldn’t be initiated towards 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 show-cause notice to KAP Sinha, chief secretary, 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,” the court docket mentioned.
The bench mentioned if the official felt another officer was at fault, he was “free to file an affidavit” giving the names or different particulars of the officers liable for the court docket to provoke motion.
The matter can be heard once more on March 24.
Response of DPI, faculties, sought
The bench additionally issued discover to the deputy director, workplace of the director for public instruction (faculties), Punjab, searching for his response on why motion shouldn’t be initiated towards him for submitting a false affidavit.
Through the listening to, Punjab advocate normal Gurminder Singh assured the bench of returning with one thing optimistic on the implementation of the scheme on the following date.
The court docket requested the chief secretary to reply in clear phrases whether or not the state was prepared to grant advantages underneath the scheme whereas warning of contempt motion.
When the chief secretary did not enunciate, the regulation officer sought every week’s time, reasoning the officer was cautious of breaching a laws handed subsequently.
The highest court docket was listening to an enchantment filed by Rajnish Kumar and others concerning the non-implementation of the Punjab Privately Managed Affiliated and Punjab Authorities Aided Faculties Pensionary Advantages Scheme, 1996.
The scheme was circulated vide a memo on December 18, 1996. Because the scheme was not being carried out, the petitions had been moved within the Punjab and Haryana excessive court docket for instructions.
State govt had given enterprise to excessive court docket
The excessive court docket let off the Punjab authorities after an enterprise by the state that the scheme can be printed and carried out by June 15, 2002.
The highest court docket in its February 18 order noticed after giving undertakings on greater than a few events to the excessive court docket to implement the scheme, lots of time was wasted by the state authorities, firstly by framing guidelines after which by searching for adjournments from the excessive court docket on the bottom that the proposal for repealing the foundations was pending.
On March 16, 2012, after over a decade had elapsed, the state authorities assured the excessive court docket to discover the opportunity of accepting the functions of the scheme of the 12 months 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 highest court docket famous.
The apex court docket was knowledgeable that the enterprise given to the excessive court docket, recorded within the order dated Might 2, 2002, was by the manager and never the state authorities.
“However, we must record here that the 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 mentioned.
The state authorities, the highest court docket mentioned, couldn’t blame the manager. “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.