A petition left with the Supreme Court registry since September 1 because of defects lies behind the State’s DA appeal delay, which the Punjab and Haryana High Court said looked like a deliberate, designed effort; the Chief Secretary must now answer on affidavit.
Chandigarh: Directing Chief Secretary KAP Sinha to file a detailed affidavit and appear in person on November 5, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday, October 30, said the Punjab government’s conduct on paying Dearness Allowance (DA) to its employees and pensioners did not inspire confidence. The State, it noted, had not taken steps to get its appeal against the High Court’s August 3 ruling listed before the Supreme Court [Criminal contempt proceedings over Punjab DA judgment].
An application alleging non-compliance with the direction to file a compliance affidavit was being heard by a Division Bench of Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj and Justice Ravinder Malik. Senior Advocate RS Cheema is assisting the Court as amicus curiae.
The Bench on the unlisted petition
Going through the sequence of events, the Bench observed, left hardly any valid reason for the appeal not being listed:
“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 unpaid court fee drew the question, “₹520 hai abhi Punjab sarkar k pass” (Does the Punjab government even have ₹520 right now?), and the Bench wondered whether the State would attribute even that to fiscal deficit. Defects of this kind were trivial, it said, and statutory obligations cannot be made subject to a populist agenda.
What the State told the Bench
Appearing for the Chief Secretary, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh submitted that the applicants were trying to turn the case into a political issue ahead of the State’s Assembly elections, and that the issues of freebies and advertisements had been dealt with by the Supreme Court. Paying the ₹520 fee, he argued, was “purely AOR job” with nothing to do with the State’s finances, and the Chief Secretary’s earlier statements on the appeal were based on communications from the Advocate-on-Record.
Fiscal priorities were the domain of the executive and political leadership, the Bench replied, remarking, “You may put your hoarding on the Moon or Mars, we are not concerned.” Accountability had to be fixed in a matter with such high stakes, it said, while clarifying that it had not yet taken judicial notice of the issue.
ALSO READ: Punjab And Haryana High Court Imposes Rs 1 Lakh Costs On Chief Secretary Over DA Dues
How the dispute reached this point
The High Court directed the State on August 3 to release all pending instalments of DA and Dearness Relief (DR) to its employees and pensioners at the same rates paid to All India Services officers serving in Punjab. The judgment also barred the government from unproductive expenditure, such as large-scale advertising campaigns, until the dues are paid.
The State challenged the ruling before the Supreme Court, but the special leave petition has remained with the top court’s registry since September 1 because of defects, including non-payment of court fees. On October 6, the High Court issued contempt notice to the Chief Secretary over an alleged misstatement about the filing of the appeal, and on October 10 it issued notice of motion for criminal contempt after taking note of an instruction from the Finance Secretary asking department heads not to implement the August 3 ruling. The State has challenged the October 10 order in a fresh petition before the Supreme Court.
An affidavit, and a warning
The matter stands adjourned to November 5 so that the Chief Secretary can file a detailed affidavit answering the allegations. He has been directed to remain present on that date, and the Court warned that no further opportunity would be given if the affidavit is not filed.
What the remarks mean for contempt proceedings
An appeal pending in the Supreme Court does not by itself suspend a High Court judgment unless the top court grants a stay. When a State relies on a pending appeal to explain non-compliance, courts will look at whether it is actually pursuing that appeal. The Bench’s remarks show that a procedural default in getting the appeal listed can be weighed in contempt proceedings.
The order also restates a settled line: how a government spends its money is for the executive to decide, but obligations fixed by statute or by a court cannot be set aside on that ground. Whether the Chief Secretary’s explanation is accepted will be tested on November 5.
Case: Criminal contempt proceedings over non-compliance with the August 3, 2026 DA/DR judgment
Bench: Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj and Justice Ravinder Malik, Punjab and Haryana High Court
Date of Hearing: October 30, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate RS Cheema as amicus curiae; Senior Advocates Sanjay Kaushal and Chetan Mittal for the applicant-employees; Senior Advocate Vikas Singh for Chief Secretary KAP Sinha; Additional Advocate General Chanchal K. Singla and Ferry Sofat for the State of Punjab