Supreme Court Slams Punjab Govt For Disowning Undertaking Given By Addl Advocate General, Hauls Up Chief Secretary

The Supreme Court on Tuesday pulled up the State of Punjab for attempting to distance itself from an undertaking given by its Additional Advocate General in 2002 assuring the Court that the state will implement the Punjab Privately Managed Affiliated and Punjab Government Aided Colleges Pensionary Benefits Scheme, 1986. The state had claimed that the undertaking was by the officer and not by the State Government.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice N Kotiswar Singh issued notice to Chief Secretary KAP Sinha, asking him to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him for the breach of the undertaking given to the High Court.

“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. If he is of the view that some other officer is involved is responsible for the breach of undertaking, he is free to file an affidavit giving the names or other details of the officers who are responsible so that this court can initiate action against them. Notice is made returnable on 24th March.”

The court also issued notice to the Deputy Director, Office of the Director for Public Instruction (Colleges), Punjab, requiring him to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against him for filing a false affidavit before the court stating that pension benefits were not granted because employees had not exercised their options under the scheme. The Court observed that this statement was incorrect, as the scheme itself was never published or implemented.

The Court expressed strong disapproval of the state's stance, stating that it would no longer accept any oral submissions made by lawyers on behalf of Punjab and would require affidavits sworn by responsible officers.

Ultimately, the Punjab Advocate General Gurminder Singh assured the court that he will come back with something positive on the next date in terms of implementation of the Scheme.

He said, “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

On July 26, 2001, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had taken note of a statement made on behalf of the State Government which had then assured that the scheme would be implemented within three months. However, no compliance was made. On May 2, 2002, the Additional Advocate General, upon instructions from the officers present, made an undertaking before the High Court that the scheme would be published and implemented by June 15, 2002. The High Court, relying on this assurance, refrained from initiating contempt proceedings.

However, instead of implementing the scheme, the Punjab Government later introduced the Punjab Privately Managed Recognised Affiliated Aided Colleges (Pension and Contributory Provident Fund) Rules, 2002. Over the years, the state repeatedly sought adjournments before the High Court, citing efforts to repeal these rules. Despite multiple assurances recorded in court orders between 2011 and 2012, the state ultimately presented a bill in the legislature on December 18, 2012, to repeal the 1996 scheme with retrospective effect from April 1, 1992.

On February 18, 2025, the State state claimed that the undertaking recorded in the 2002 order was by the Executive and not by the State Government. Thereafter, the Court summoned the Chief Secretary observing, “However, we must record here that the said 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 15th June, 2002. Now, the State Government cannot put the blame on the Executive. If such an approach is adopted, the Courts will find it extremely difficult to accept the statements made by the Law Officers of the States across the Bar and the Courts will have to start a practice of taking 6 affidavits of every statement which is sought to be made across the Bar.”

Today's Courtroom Proceedings

The Supreme Court sought a direct response from the Punjab Chief Secretary, who was present via video conference. Justice Oka pressed for a clear answer on whether the state would grant benefits under the scheme, warning that contempt proceedings could be initiated. “Either today you are making a statement that you are granting the petitioners relief, or we should issue contempt proceedings. Let officers go to jail, and thereafter we will hear you,” Justice Oka remarked.

Initially hesitant, the Chief Secretary responded, “I will have to go by whatever my lord will say.” Justice Oka said that the court was not compelling the state but was seeking an answer.

The Chief Secretary remained non-committal, and the Punjab Advocate General Gurminder Singh sought a week's time, submitting that the Chief Secretary is unable to make a statement as it would result in the breach of a subsequently passed legislation. The court refused to grant additional time. Eventually, the Chief Secretary stated in the affirmative that the benefit would be granted. 

The bench expressed strong displeasure at the state's conduct. Justice Oka remarked, “The court has completely been taken for a ride.” After the Court had passed the order issuing show cause notices, the Punjab Advocate General sought to address the Court on the issue of implementation of the 1996 Scheme.

Justice Oka pointed out that the state had made multiple assurances for the implementation of the 1996 Scheme, and not followed through. He criticized Punjab for misleading the courts multiple times—first by giving an undertaking, then by introducing rules, then by promising to withdraw them, and later by enacting a law to repeal the scheme.

The Advocate General urged the court to examine the legislation and suggested that everything should be reconsidered from the perspective of fully implementing the scheme.

Justice Oka insisted that he, as an officer of the court, answer whether the court had been taken for a ride. The Advocate General responded, “Can I only say one thing? I am representing the state. I am nobody.”

Justice Oka retorted, “You are everybody! You are the state, with the power to say that statements of the Advocate General are not statements of the state. It's such a powerful state that it is denying the correctness of the Additional Advocate General's statement.”

The Advocate General then urged the court not to take a harsh approach and sought one week to present a positive solution. “Let us presume today that the Act is also gone. Eventually, the Scheme will come into operation. To operationalize the scheme, certain parameters must be fulfilled, including the return of the management and also the employees' share with adequate interest. As your lordship said, let us calculate the outcome. We come back after a week. Let us not go the harsh path on the first date.”

Justice Oka maintained that officers had to be sent a strong message that courts cannot be misled. “Officers have to be given a signal that court cannot be taken for a ride. And if we don't do that, we will be failing now,” he observed.

Justice Oka reiterated that as far as Punjab was concerned, any statement by an advocate would no longer be accepted. “Every time, it has to be an affidavit of the officer,” he remarked. The Advocate General accepted this, saying, “Correct, my lord. Let me come back on the 24th with something positive.”

After the assurance by the Advocate General, the Court kept the matter on top of the list on March 24, 2025.

Case no. – Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 19667/2015

Case Title – Rajnish Kumar & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. 

Click Here To Read/Download Order