Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has imposed a further cost of ₹2 lakh on the Punjab government for failing to file its written statement in a pension-related writ petition that has remained pending since 2001.
The order was passed by Justice Sandeep Moudgil, who also issued notice to Punjab Chief Secretary K.A.P. Sinha, a 1992-batch IAS officer of the Punjab cadre, asking him to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated for continued non-compliance with the court’s directions.
The latest cost is in addition to ₹1.5 lakh imposed earlier in the same matter. The court observed that the repeated failure to comply with its orders “clearly reflects an intentional and deliberate attempt to violate the orders of this Court and to subvert the Court proceedings.”
Court Questions Continued Non-Compliance
The case, filed by Vishnu Dutt and others against the State of Punjab, concerns a prayer for re-computation and enhancement of pensionary benefits. The writ petition was instituted in 2001, and the court had earlier noted that the State had not filed its written statement despite completion of service.
Read Also: Punjab HC Directs State to Expedite Regular DGP Appointment, Seeks Compliance From Chief Secretary
In July, the court had criticised the State’s handling of the matter and imposed ₹1 lakh in costs. The amount was to be shared among four senior officials. When the matter came up again in August, a further ₹50,000 cost was imposed on the Principal Secretary and Director of Health and Family Welfare after the required reply remained pending.
The Chief Secretary was subsequently directed to file an affidavit confirming compliance with the order concerning the ₹50,000 deduction.
Despite these directions, the court found continued default and imposed the latest ₹2 lakh cost. Justice Moudgil also expressed concern that the Chief Secretary had already been made aware of the State’s failure to respond.
The court remarked that it was “amazed as well as at pain” over the conduct of the concerned officials.
Court Rejects State’s Argument on Petitioner’s Absence
Additional Advocate-General Rajiv Verma argued that the petitioner had not appeared on the previous three dates and had chosen not to press the matter, questioning the decision to increase the cost on the State.
The court rejected the argument, holding that the petitioner’s conduct did not excuse the State from complying with judicial directions.
“The State cannot make itself a litigant who is least bothered about the directions of this Court,” the Bench observed.
It further said that the orders imposing costs related to “the conduct and approach of the State Government alone” and were independent of the petitioner’s conduct.
The court also observed that “a party to a dispute cannot take advantage of the weaknesses of the other side but has to contest the case on its own merits and strength.”
The Bench noted that the matter concerns pensionary benefits and that the prolonged pendency has affected similarly placed persons, some of whom have retired or died without obtaining adjudication of their claims.
The matter has been adjourned to October 12.
Read Also: No More Indefinite Ad Hoc Arrangement: Punjab HC Directs State to Appoint Regular DGP
