State Told to Reply by October 27
12 October, 2026 – Chandigarh : Just over two months after the Punjab and Haryana High Court directed Punjab to file a compliance report on release of dearness allowance and dearness relief to its employees and pensioners, a Division Bench on Monday issued formal notice to the State of Punjab in the criminal contempt.
The Bench of Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj and Justice Ravinder Malik asserted that the fact that the matter had been referred to the Contempt Bench by the Bench previously hearing the matter showed that there has been prime facie consideration of the government’s contentions in the affidavit as well as the documents.
The Bench also appointed senior advocate RS Cheema as amicus curiae to assist the Bench in the matter. The State was directed to file its reply by October 30, and the case was directed to be heard on October 30.
At the onset, senior advocates Sanjay Kaushal appearing on behalf of the applicant-employees alleged an attempt to delay the matter till the code of conduct came into force in view of the impending assembly elections in the state. He, along with senior advocate Chetan Mittal, contended that 7.5 lakh employees were at the receiving end.
The Bench was also told that Punjab issued advertisements in 28 newspapers despite restraint on issuance of the same till compliance of its order on release of DA was made. It was added that the Finance department issued a letter saying no order of the high court was to be implemented without its permission.
The senior advocates were assisted in the matter by advocates Gagneshwar Walia and Hargun Sethi. Punjab was represented by senior advocates Vikas Singh and Chanchal K Singla, along with advocate Ferry Sofat.
Before parting with the case, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor had on the previous date of hearing observed that the court was duty-bound to ensure that its majesty was not compromised.
“This Court is enjoined with the task of ensuring that the majesty of the Court is not compromised in any manner. Even suggestions questioning the propriety in conduct of Court proceedings must be dealt with carefully. In these circumstances and having regard to the assertions made in the applications filed for initiation of contempt proceedings and the submission advanced on behalf of the parties, we deem it appropriate to direct that the present matter be placed before the Bench having jurisdiction to deal with cases of criminal contempt as per roster after obtaining necessary orders on the administrative side,” the Bench had asserted.
The dispute relates to a common judgment passed on April 8 directing the Punjab Government to release Dearness Allowance and Dearness Relief to its employees and pensioners at the same rates as paid to members of the All India Services serving in Punjab, in accordance with the Central Government pattern.
The judgment had directed compliance by June 30 and required the Chief Secretary to file an affidavit regarding compliance, following which appeals were filed. The judgment of August 3 was delivered by the Division Bench, comprising Justice Mishra and Justice Kapoor. The Bench dismissed the appeals filed by the State and PSPCL and affirmed the Single Judge’s directions, while modifying the timeline for implementation because the original June 30 deadline had already expired during the pendency of the appeals. The Bench directed release of the pending DA/DR instalments within a fortnight.
The Bench, during the course of hearing, had noted that the Chief Secretary present before the Court had filed an affidavit stating that all defects had been rectified and the SLP challenging its orders before the Supreme Court had been re-filed –– a claim contested by the other side.
After going through a report submitted by the Supreme Court registry on the status of the two SLPs filed by the State, the Bench had prima facie found the statement made by the Chief Secretary in his affidavit “palpably false”. The Bench then issued notice to him for explaining why criminal contempt proceedings should not be initiated for “willfully misleading” the court.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the State, submitted that there was no deliberate intention on the Chief Secretary’s part to make a false statement regarding removal of defects in SLP. “Should this Court deem it appropriate, the Chief Secretary is willing to tender an unconditional apology,” he added.
Opposing the offer, counsel for the applicants –– senior advocates Sanjay Kaushal and Mittal submitted: “This is not a case where the offer of an apology deserves consideration by the Court, particularly when the conduct of the State is contemptuous and deliberate attempt is made to scandalise the proceedings of this Court”. They further contended that “ex-facie criminal contempt is made out on the basis of averments set out in the affidavits”.
The Tribune