Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday sharply questioned the Punjab government over its Supreme Court appeal in the dearness allowance (DA) case, asking whether the state even has Rs 520 to pay the court fee that is among the defects keeping the appeal stuck in the top court's registry since September 1. A bench of Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj and Justice Ravinder Malik was hearing a plea alleging non-compliance over the filing of a compliance affidavit by Chief Secretary KAP Sinha, in criminal contempt proceedings arising out of the DA judgment.

Source: Bar and Bench

Referring to the unpaid court fee, the bench remarked, in a mix of Hindi and English, 'Rs 520 hai abhi Punjab sarkar ke pass?' — asking whether the Punjab government even has Rs 520 right now. The court called defects such as non-payment of court fees trivial in nature, and wondered whether the state would argue that even the non-payment of Rs 520 was on account of fiscal deficit.

The bench said the state government's conduct regarding payment of DA to employees and pensioners did not inspire confidence, as it had failed to take steps to get its appeal listed before the Supreme Court. 'When you go through the sequence of events, there is hardly a valid reason for non-listing of the SLP. It seems a deliberate designed effort to ensure that the SLP is not listed at all, considering the fact that you have been successful in getting other SLPs listed before Supreme Court at a short notice of 24 hours,' the bench said.

The August 3 judgment behind the row

On August 3, the High Court had directed the state to release all up-to-date pending instalments of dearness allowance and dearness relief (DA/DR) to its employees and pensioners at the same rates as paid to All India Services (IAS/IPS/IFS) officers serving in Punjab. The judgment also bars the government from unproductive expenditure, such as large-scale advertising campaigns in print or social media, until the dues are paid. The state has challenged that judgment in the Supreme Court, but the petition has remained in the registry since September 1 because of defects.

This is the latest development in the same matter: on October 6 the court issued a contempt notice to Chief Secretary KAP Sinha over an affidavit on the status of the appeal, on October 10 it took note of a Finance Secretary instruction asking department heads not to implement the August 3 ruling, and earlier this week it imposed Rs 1 lakh in costs on the state in the DA arrears dispute.

What the state argued

Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the Chief Secretary, said the Rs 520 court fee is purely the job of the advocate-on-record and has nothing to do with state finances or fiscal indiscipline, and that there is no record that the state is unable to pay Rs 520. He said the Chief Secretary's earlier submissions on the appeal were based on communications received from the advocate-on-record, and alleged that the applicants were trying to make a political issue of the case as the state heads towards assembly elections.

Source: LawChakra

The bench replied that fiscal priorities are the domain of the executive and political leadership — 'You may put your hoarding on the Moon or Mars, we are not concerned' — but said statutory obligations cannot be made subject to a populist agenda, and that accountability has to be fixed in a matter with such high stakes. It clarified that it has taken no judicial notice of the fee issue so far.

What happens next

The court adjourned the matter to November 5, directing the Chief Secretary to file a detailed affidavit answering the allegations and to remain present in person, and warned that if the affidavit is not filed, no further opportunity will be given. The Tribune has reported that pending DA and DR arrears are estimated at about Rs 14,191 crore, and that the government has weighed phased payment over five years.

Senior advocate RS Cheema is amicus curiae in the case, senior advocates Sanjay Kaushal and Chetan Mittal appeared for the applicant-employees, and Additional Advocate General Chanchal K Singla and Ferry Sofat appeared for the State of Punjab. The remarks reported here are court observations made during the hearing, not a final finding.