Sub-title
The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the Punjab Government’s appeal, directed payment of pending DA and DR arrears, and barred large-scale State advertisements until the dues are cleared.
Court Upholds Employees’ Right to Pending DA and DR
In the Punjab DA Arrears Ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the Punjab Government’s appeal against a Single Judge’s order directing the payment of pending Dearness Allowance (DA) and Dearness Relief (DR) arrears. A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor upheld the earlier decision. The Court also restrained the State from launching large-scale public advertisement campaigns until it clears all outstanding DA and DR dues.
Financial Constraints Cannot Override Legal Rights
The Bench rejected the State’s argument that financial hardship justified withholding the arrears. It held that monetary constraints cannot deprive government employees and pensioners of benefits that have already accrued to them.
The Court also upheld the Single Judge’s decision striking down the Punjab Government’s Liquidation Plan dated February 18, 2025. The policy proposed releasing pension arrears in phases based on the age of beneficiaries. However, the High Court held that the plan was arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
State Challenged the Single Judge’s Jurisdiction
Appearing for the Punjab Government, Advocate General Maninderjit Singh Bedi argued that the Single Judge’s order suffered from coram non judice and was therefore void.
He submitted that the Single Judge’s roster covered only matters involving Statutory Bodies and Corporations and did not extend to general State Service matters. He further argued that State employees had not directly approached the Court in the proceedings. Therefore, according to the State, the Bench lacked jurisdiction to issue directions against the Government.
The State also relied on Meera Devi Mantri v. State of Bihar (LPA No. 157 of 2025) to argue that an appellant cannot enlarge the scope of a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) beyond the issues raised before the Single Judge.
Employees Defended the Earlier Judgment
Representing the respondent employees, Senior Advocate Sanjay Kaushal opposed the State’s objections. He argued that the judicial rosters overlapped and that the objection regarding coram non judice had no merit.
Senior Advocate Kaushal also submitted that Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) functions under the policy directions of the Punjab Government. Therefore, he argued that the Court was justified in issuing directions against the State to enforce statutory service obligations.
Appeal Dismissed
The High Court ultimately dismissed the Punjab Government’s appeal and affirmed the Single Judge’s directions. The Punjab DA Arrears Ruling makes it clear that governments cannot cite financial difficulties to delay statutory payments owed to employees and pensioners. It also bars the Punjab Government from undertaking large-scale public advertisements until all pending DA and DR arrears are fully paid.
