New Delhi, Apr 4 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Friday strongly criticised the Punjab Government for failing to implement the Punjab Privately Managed Affiliated and Punjab Government Aided Colleges Pensionary Benefits Scheme, 1986, and depriving eligible beneficiaries of their pensionary entitlements.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a contempt petition against the Punjab Chief Secretary for violating an earlier commitment made by the state's Additional Advocate General regarding the scheme's implementation.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the Punjab government, argued that some petitioners had already withdrawn their Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) at the time of retirement. He suggested a compensation of ₹1 lakh for affected individuals. However, the court firmly rejected this amount as insufficient.
Justice Oka remarked, “The Rs1 lakh submission is not even reaching our ears. We will grant substantial compensation.” He further added that if the government failed to act, the court would direct the state to pay a minimum of Rs 25 lakh to each petitioner, recoverable from those responsible for the non-implementation of the scheme.
The petitioners’ counsel opposed the state’s stance, calling the Punjab Repeal Act “completely illegal” and emphasising that pension fixation would result in payments of Rs 1.5 lakh per month to retired employees.
The court also took strong exception to Punjab’s repeated failure to honour its assurances. Justice Oka warned, "If the state is adamant, we know how to deal with the state. We cannot ignore how the court is being treated. We have recorded earlier that the state has been taken for a ride.”
Punjab Chief Secretary KAP Sinha appeared via videoconferencing. The bench questioned whether previous commitments by the Advocate General (AG) held any weight if the government continued to disregard them. Justice Oka noted that moving forward, any statement made by the AG must be accompanied by an affidavit from the concerned state officer.
Singhvi defended the AG, stating that efforts had been made but had not materialised. The court acknowledged the AG’s sincerity but stressed that his advice seemed to be ignored by the state.
Granting a final opportunity for compliance, the Supreme Court listed the matter for further hearing on April 15, warning that if no resolution is reached, it will pass a final order directing monetary compensation.
UNI/SNG/ARN