HC imposes Rs 2 lakh cost for third failure in 25-year-old case, puts Punjab Chief Secretary on contempt notice

The Court simultaneously put Punjab Chief Secretary KAP Sinha to notice to explain why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act should not be initiated against him.

Justice Sandeep Moudgil asserted the Court was “amazed as well as at pain” over the conduct of two of the official respondents in the matter. They failed to file their written statements despite the Chief Secretary himself having been made aware of the State’s conduct in a matter, where the reply was not filed for the last more than 24 years.

“Either the respondent-State has substantial public exchequer at its disposal or is least bothered about the hard-earned money of the people, which is being paid out of the pockets of income-tax payers and is not the State Government’s own bounty. Let the said fund be utilized for some better object and purpose that would at least help the families of the Bar Members of this Court,” the Bench directed.

Justice Moudgil had initially rapped Punjab for its “callous and indifferent approach” before imposing a cost of Rs 1 lakh for its failure to file the written statement for the last 25 years in the matter.

The Bench, on the next date of hearing, imposed a further cost of Rs 50,000 for continued non-compliance with its directions. The amount was directed to be deducted from the salary of Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, and the Director, Health and Family Welfare, in equal proportion.

As the matter came up for resumed hearing, Justice Moudgil put the responsibility for confirming compliance on the State Chief Secretary by directing him to file an affidavit.

“The Chief Secretary to the Government of Punjab shall file an affidavit on the next date of hearing specifically indicating that the amount of Rs 50,000 has been deducted from the salaries/remuneration of the officers and deposited in the account as ordered by this Court,” the Bench directed.

“In case of failure on the part of the Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, to do so by the next date of hearing, he shall remain present in Court in person,” Justice Moudgil directed.

Appearing before the Bench, Additional Advocate-General Rajiv Verma, meanwhile, contended it was surprising that the Court was enhancing the cost upon the State when the petitioner himself had chosen not to press the case and had not appeared for the last three dates.

The Court rejected the submission, holding that “the State cannot make itself a litigant who is least bothered about the directions of this Court.”

It said the three orders imposing costs concerned “the conduct and approach of the State Government alone” and had nothing to do with the petitioner’s attitude or interest in the case.

The Court further observed “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.”

Justice Moudgil added: “In the present case, the State has admittedly and deliberately failed to do so, for which Rajiv Verma, Additional Advocate-General, Punjab, has no explanation as to why the written statement has not been filed by the State in response to the petition for the last more than 24 years”. The matter has now been adjourned to October 12.

The Bench, on a previous date of hearing, had observed that the writ petition was instituted in 2001 and the adjourned vide order dated November 27, 2001. “Despite completion of service, the respondent-State failed to file its written statement for the last 25 years. Such conduct is not only condemnable, but also deeply disturbing,” Justice Moudgil had observed.

The Court had added it could not refrain from recording its anguish over the “callous and indifferent approach” of the State government, which contributed to the prolonged pendency of such writ petitions.

“The present petition involves a limited prayer for re-computation and enhancement of pensionary benefits. During the pendency of these proceedings, many similarly situated petitioners have already retired from service, while some have unfortunately passed away without securing adjudication of their legitimate claims,” Justice Moudgil had added.

Before parting with the order, the Bench had added that such an inhuman and apathetic approach on the State government’s part “in failing to file its reply despite the notice of motion issued by this Court and allowing the matter to remain unattended for nearly 25 years, deserves to be deprecated in the strongest terms”.