Chief Secretary Directed to File Personal Affidavit and Pay Rs.1 Lakh Costs for Non-Compliance; Court Imposes Strict Measures to Enforce Payment to Employees and Pensioners
Chandigarh, October 27, 2026 - The Punjab and Haryana High Court has taken a stern view of the Punjab State Government's failure to comply with its orders directing the release of pending Dearness Allowance (DA) and Dearness Relief (DR) installments to state employees and pensioners. The Court, headed by Justice Harsh Bunger, expressed displeasure over the State authorities' defiant attitude and non-compliance despite clear timelines set by previous judgments.
The case stems from a writ petition (CWP No. 7291 of 2026) filed by Nirmal Singh Dhanoa and others seeking quashing of an earlier government order which had kept pending the payment of DA/DR increments. The petitioners demanded parity in DA/DR rates with those paid to members of the All India Services (IAS/IPS/IFS) serving in Punjab, and arrears with interest for delayed payments.
On April 8, 2026, the writ Court ordered the Punjab Government and Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) to pay all pending DA/DR installments and arrears to employees and pensioners by June 30, 2026, at par with the Central Government pattern applicable to All India Services officers. The Chief Secretary was directed to ensure compliance and file an affidavit confirming the same by July 2, 2026.
However, the Government failed to comply or file the required report. Consequently, upon appeal, the Division Bench modified the timeline, directing the release of dues within 15 days from August 3, 2026, i.e., by August 18, 2026, warning that unpaid dues would attract 6% simple interest annually from the due date till payment. The Chief Secretary was again ordered to file a compliance affidavit by August 31, 2026, and the State was restrained from incurring unproductive expenditure such as large-scale advertising campaigns until dues were cleared.
Despite these explicit directions, non-compliance continued. No payment was made, and no affidavit filed by the Chief Secretary. Instead, a memorandum dated August 17, 2026, was issued by the Finance Department instructing all administrative departments not to implement the Court orders without prior concurrence of the Finance Department or generalized directions, effectively restraining compliance.
The petitioners highlighted this disobedience before the Court, which noted that Special Leave Petitions filed by the State and PSPCL were still pending due to defects and that criminal contempt proceedings were underway against the Chief Secretary over a false affidavit.
During the contempt proceedings, the Court granted the Government multiple opportunities to file status reports, but no compliance was shown. The Court found the State's conduct "defiant" and "cannot be countenanced in law."
In the latest order dated October 27, 2026, the Court directed the Chief Secretary to file a personal affidavit by October 30, 2026, explaining the status of compliance with the April and August orders and the rationale behind the Finance Department's restrictive memorandum. The Chief Secretary was also ordered to pay costs of Rs. 1,00,000 to the High Court Lawyers Welfare Fund for the delay and non-compliance, and to appear physically before the Court on the next hearing scheduled for November 3, 2026.
The Court's intervention underscores the judiciary's intolerance toward administrative indifference in matters affecting employees' and pensioners' financial rights. The judgment reiterates the binding nature of Court orders and the State's duty to ensure their implementation without unnecessary delay or obstruction.
The ruling also sends a clear message that public funds cannot be diverted for non-essential expenditures like advertising while statutory dues remain unpaid, emphasizing principles of equity, justice, and fair play as enshrined in service jurisprudence.
Bottom Line:
Contempt - Non-compliance of directions issued in writ proceedings and LPA regarding release of pending Dearness Allowance/Dearness Relief to employees and pensioners - Court found defiant attitude of State authorities - Chief Secretary directed to file personal affidavit explaining compliance and memorandum restraining implementation of court orders without Finance Department concurrence - Costs imposed and personal presence ordered.
Statutory provision(s): Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; Civil Procedure Code (applicable provisions related to contempt); Punjab Pay Commission Recommendations (as per Government orders).
Nirmal Singh Dhanoa v. KAP Sinha, IAS, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3004120
