Punjab and Haryana High Court Summons Chief Secretary Over Pending DA/DR Dues, Sets November 3 Hearing
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed Punjab Chief Secretary K.A.P. Sinha to appear personally before it on November 3, 2026, in proceedings concerning the alleged non-compliance with judicial directions on pending Dearness Allowance (DA) and Dearness Relief (DR) instalments for state government employees and pensioners.
The court has also directed the Chief Secretary to submit a personal affidavit by October 30, explaining the extent of compliance with earlier judicial orders. The direction is subject to the payment of ₹1 lakh in costs, which must be deposited in the High Court Lawyers Welfare Fund.
The directions were issued by Justice Harsh Bunger on Tuesday while hearing a contempt petition alleging wilful and deliberate non-compliance with previous court orders requiring the Punjab government to release pending DA and DR instalments at rates applicable to members of the All India Services serving in the state.
During the hearing, the court criticised what it described as the government’s “defiant attitude” towards compliance with its directions. Justice Bunger observed that the circumstances reflected an approach to judicial compliance that could not be accepted in law.
The proceedings concern the implementation of earlier judicial directions. The allegations of contempt remain subject to the court’s consideration and should not be treated as a final determination of liability.
Chief Secretary Directed to File Personal Affidavit by October 30
The High Court has asked the Chief Secretary to explain the extent to which the state government has complied with the Single Judge’s order dated April 8 and the Division Bench’s order dated August 3.
The affidavit must also clarify the government’s position on a memorandum dated August 17. The memorandum reportedly stated that certain directions should not be implemented without prior concurrence from the Finance Department or until generalised directions were issued, whichever occurred earlier.
The court’s directions followed an earlier hearing on August 21, when the state government was granted time to submit a status report or compliance report. Justice Bunger noted that, despite the opportunity provided, no such report had been placed on record.
When the state counsel sought another extension, the court described the request as “totally unjustified”, taking into account the opportunities already granted to the government.
The court subsequently directed the Chief Secretary to submit the personal affidavit by October 30, subject to payment of ₹1 lakh in costs. The Chief Secretary must also remain physically present before the court on November 3, when the matter is scheduled to be heard again.
Court Examines Earlier Opportunities to Challenge the Orders
During the proceedings, senior advocate Sanjay Kaushal, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the Division Bench had repeatedly given the Punjab government and the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) opportunities to pursue an appeal before the Supreme Court.
According to the submissions recorded during the hearing, effective steps did not appear to have been taken to pursue that course. The court also noted that criminal contempt proceedings had been initiated against the Punjab Chief Secretary in connection with allegations concerning the filing of a false affidavit.
That separate matter is pending before a Division Bench of the High Court. The petitioner was also represented by advocates Sunny Singla, Riti Aggarwal and Arjun Kaushal.
The current contempt petition focuses on the alleged failure to implement judicial directions concerning DA and DR payments. The allegations relating to the affidavit and the observations made during the proceedings must be considered in their respective legal contexts. The court’s observations at the present stage do not, by themselves, amount to a final finding of contempt against the Chief Secretary or any other respondent.
What Did the April 8 Judgment Direct?
The dispute originates from a common judgment delivered by the High Court on April 8, 2026. The Single Judge directed the Punjab government to release Dearness Allowance to serving state employees and Dearness Relief to pensioners at the same rates applicable to members of the All India Services serving in Punjab, following the Central Government’s pattern.
The judgment required the state to comply by June 30. It also directed the Chief Secretary to submit an affidavit confirming implementation of the directions. The state government and PSPCL subsequently challenged the judgment by filing appeals.
The dispute over the implementation of the original judgment continued while the appeals were being considered, leading to further proceedings before the Division Bench.
August 3 Division Bench Judgment Reaffirmed the Directions
On August 3, 2026, a Division Bench comprising Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor dismissed the appeals filed by the Punjab government and PSPCL, upholding the Single Judge’s directions.
Since the original June 30 deadline had expired while the appeals were pending, the Division Bench modified the implementation timeline. It directed the state government to release the outstanding DA and DR instalments within a fortnight.
The latest contempt proceedings arise from the allegation that the state has not complied with the directions despite the additional time and opportunities provided by the court.
The Chief Secretary’s affidavit is expected to clarify the government’s position on compliance with both the Single Judge’s judgment and the subsequent Division Bench order.
Why Are DA and DR Payments at the Centre of the Dispute?
Dearness Allowance is paid to serving government employees to help offset the effects of inflation on their household expenditure. Dearness Relief serves a corresponding purpose for eligible pensioners.
The present dispute concerns the rates applicable to Punjab government employees and pensioners in comparison with those applicable to members of the All India Services serving in the state.
The High Court’s April 8 judgment directed Punjab to release DA and DR at the applicable All India Services rates, following the Central Government’s pattern. The Division Bench subsequently upheld those directions and specified a revised deadline for releasing the outstanding instalments.
The current proceedings focus on whether the state has implemented the court’s directions within the prescribed timeframe. The court has sought a formal explanation from the Chief Secretary rather than relying on another request for additional time without a compliance report being placed on record.
Earlier Contempt Proceedings Add to the Legal Context
The present case is not the only contempt-related matter involving the Punjab Chief Secretary mentioned in the court proceedings.The High Court noted that separate criminal contempt proceedings had been initiated in connection with allegations concerning a false affidavit. That matter remains pending before a Division Bench.
The existence of the separate proceedings is relevant to the background of the current hearing, but the two matters should not be conflated. The present petition specifically concerns the alleged non-compliance with judicial directions on pending DA and DR instalments.
In the current case, the court has sought clarification on the government’s compliance with the April 8 and August 3 orders, as well as its position on the August 17 memorandum.
What Happens Next?
The next stage of the proceedings will centre on the Chief Secretary’s personal affidavit and appearance before the High Court. The affidavit is due by October 30, subject to the payment of ₹1 lakh in costs to the High Court Lawyers Welfare Fund. The Chief Secretary has been directed to appear physically before the court on November 3.
The court will have the opportunity to examine the explanation provided by the state and consider the status of compliance with its earlier directions. The case highlights the continuing legal dispute over pending DA and DR instalments for Punjab government employees and pensioners. Its outcome will depend on the compliance record, the explanation submitted by the state and the further directions issued by the High Court.
