The Supreme Court has criticized the Punjab government for its failure to enforce the Punjab Privately Managed Affiliated and Punjab Government Aided Colleges Pensionary Benefits Scheme, 1996, despite numerous assurances. During a recent hearing, the court expressed its frustration and warned that it may order the state to provide financial benefits to petitioners if a resolution is not reached.
A bench led by Justice Abhay Oka emphasized the government’s poor record of compliance. The court previously issued a contempt notice to Punjab’s chief secretary after acknowledging that the state did not honor its commitments made to the high court. During the latest proceedings, it was noted that even with repeated guarantees, the Punjab government has failed to offer a solution.
The bench remarked, “Assurances given to the court have no meaning? Courts are taken for a ride.” The court indicated that should the state continue to neglect its responsibilities, it would issue an order mandating payment to petitioners. “We can’t overlook how the state government has treated the courts. We will instruct the state to compensate them substantially,” it stated.
Allowing the state some time to respond, the court clarified that if a satisfactory solution is not presented, an order for monetary compensation will be enacted. The bench instructed the state counsel to communicate their expectations clearly and granted a deadline for a response.
This pivotal case is scheduled for further hearing on April 4, during which the state counsel is expected to provide guidance from the government. Historical records reveal that in a 2002 ruling, the Additional Advocate General for Punjab had committed to publishing and implementing the scheme by June 15, 2002. The Supreme Court remarked that the government cannot shift responsibility to the executive at this stage.
In the course of the hearing, the Chief Secretary attended virtually and was questioned on whether the state plans to provide relief to petitioners or face potential contempt proceedings. The Advocate General for Punjab stated he could not make a definitive declaration due to possible breaches of subsequent legislation but requested additional time to deliver a favorable outcome.
