Court rejects State's plea that interest payment suffices as compliance; highlights wilful disobedience and lack of compliance with binding orders directing release of pending DA/DR to employees and pensioners
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has taken a stern view of the Punjab government's failure to comply with its binding directions to release pending installments of Dearness Allowance (DA) and Dearness Relief (DR) to its employees and pensioners. In a significant judgment delivered by Justice Harsh Bunger, the Court issued a notice of motion to Mr. K.A.P. Sinha, the Chief Secretary of Punjab, to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him for wilful disobedience and non-compliance of the Court's directions.
Background and Court Directions:
The case arose from a series of orders directing the State of Punjab and Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) to grant and release all pending DA/DR installments to employees and pensioners on par with the rates paid to All India Services officers serving in the State, in accordance with the Central Government's pattern. The Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court, through an order dated August 3, 2026, had extended the timeline for compliance and mandated release of dues within a fortnight (by August 18, 2026), failing which simple interest at 6% per annum would be payable on the delayed amounts.
Additionally, the Chief Secretary was directed to ensure scrupulous compliance and file a compliance affidavit by August 31, 2026. The Court also restrained the State from undertaking unproductive expenditures, such as large-scale advertising campaigns, while dues remained unpaid.
Non-Compliance and State's Defense:
Despite these clear and binding directions, the State and PSPCL neither released the pending dues nor filed the required compliance affidavit within the stipulated time. The State contended that the order's provision for payment of 6% interest on delayed payment was a compensatory mechanism and argued that this could be treated as an alternative mode of compliance, justifying non-release of the amounts within the time frame.
The Court's Findings:
Rejecting the State's defense, the Court held that the interest provision was solely compensatory, designed to protect the financial interests of employees and pensioners, and did not authorize the State to defer or avoid substantive compliance. The obligation to release the dues within the specified period was independent and in addition to the liability to pay interest. Accepting the State's contention would render the time-bound directions meaningless and allow indefinite withholding of lawful dues.
The Court further observed that the mere filing or pendency of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, without any stay on the High Court's order, could not justify non-compliance. The State admitted the binding nature of the High Court's order and the absence of any stay but continued to delay payment.
The judgment cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Israr Ahmad Khan v. Amarnath Prasad (2026), condemning the practice of delaying compliance by merely filing appeals, which undermines the authority of courts and the rule of law.
Importantly, the Court highlighted that the failure of the Chief Secretary to file a personal compliance affidavit, despite specific directions and ample time, amounted to inaction and a lackadaisical attitude. Such conduct, especially by officers at the highest echelons of government, constitutes wilful disobedience and cannot be accepted as a defense in contempt proceedings.
Notice Issued and Next Steps:
Accordingly, the Court issued a notice to Mr. K.A.P. Sinha to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him. The Chief Secretary, present in Court, accepted the notice and sought ten days to file a reply. The matter is listed for further hearing on November 17, 2026, where the Chief Secretary is directed to remain physically present.
Significance:
This judgment reinforces the principle that State authorities cannot evade binding judicial directions by mere procedural maneuvers such as filing appeals without stays. It emphasizes the need for prompt compliance with court orders, especially those affecting the financial rights of employees and pensioners. The ruling underscores the judiciary's resolve to uphold the rule of law and ensure respect for its authority, particularly in cases involving public servants and government functionaries.
Bottom Line:
Contempt - Mere filing or pendency of Special Leave Petition, without any stay of operation of judgment, does not justify non-compliance of binding court directions - Provision for payment of interest on delayed payment is compensatory and cannot be treated as an alternative mode of compliance - Prima facie wilful disobedience made out against Chief Secretary for failure to comply with Division Bench directions regarding release of DA/DR to employees and pensioners.
Statutory provision(s): Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Constitution of India, Article 12.
Nirmal Singh Dhanoa v. KAP Sinha, IAS, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3011116
