Chandigarh: Punjab and Haryana high court on Tuesday issued a notice to Punjab chief secretary K A P Sinha, asking him to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him in the dearness allowance case.In his status report in court, the chief secretary acknowledged that the state was bound by HC’s Aug 3 order and that its liability to pay DA along with 6% interest continued to subsist. Govt said it was trying for early listing of its Special Leave Petition in Supreme Court against the HC order.The bench of Justice Harsh Bunger observed that despite this acknowledgement and in the absence of any interim protection granted by SC, state govt and Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) had failed to comply with its directions.
US Midterm Election Results 2026
“Thus, the conduct of the State of Punjab and PSPCL, particularly in view of the sufficient opportunities already afforded to them, prima facie reflects wilful disobedience of the Aug 3 directions,” the bench observed and issued a notice to Sinha.Sinha, who was present in court, sought 10 days to file his reply, which the bench granted. He has been directed to be present in court at the next hearing on Nov 17.HC is hearing a contempt petition filed by Nirmal Singh Dhanoa and others alleging non-compliance with its directions on release of DA/DR instalments to Punjab govt employees and pensioners.The status report filed by the chief secretary in court says the pending DA and Dearness Relief (DR) liability in Punjab is around Rs 32,418 crore, while payment of DA at central govt rates would entail a recurring liability of Rs 4,712 crore per year.Justice Bunger took note of this and observed, “Merely pursuing the remedy of SLP, without obtaining any order staying the operation of the judgment cannot furnish a justification for continued non-compliance.”Counsel for the petitioners, senior advocate Sanjay Kaushal with advocates Sunny Singla and Arjun Kaushal, submitted that the court had repeatedly granted time to govt and PSPCL to appeal before SC. The SLP was filed on Sept 1 and re-filed on Oct 1 but is yet to be listed for hearing.The govt counsel — senior advocates Vikas Singh and Chanchal Singla with Additional Advocate General Ferry Sofat — submitted that all objections raised by SC registry had since been removed but it has not been listed. They sought more time for state and PSPCL to secure its listing before SC.Opposing the request, the petitioners’ counsel submitted that mere filing or pendency of an SLP, in the absence of any order staying the HC directions, could not be a justification for continued non-compliance.State counsel also contended that since the Aug 3 order provided for 6% annual interest in case of default, failure to release the amounts within the stipulated period would not, by itself, constitute wilful disobedience warranting contempt proceedings.Justice Bunger rejected the contention, saying that the direction regarding payment of interest could not be construed as granting liberty to the state or PSPCL to defer compliance. The bench clarified that the interest provision was intended as a compensatory measure in favour of employees and pensioners and accepting the state’s contention would amount to permitting it and PSPCL to indefinitely withhold the payout.
