A pending Special Leave Petition without a stay is no excuse for non-compliance, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held while issuing a Contempt Notice To Punjab Chief Secretary K.A.P. Sinha, finding that the State and PSPCL prima facie wilfully disobeyed a binding order to release Dearness Allowance and Dearness Relief arrears.
Chandigarh: The Chief Secretary of Punjab has been asked to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him for wilful disobedience of a Division Bench order directing release of pending Dearness Allowance (DA) and Dearness Relief (DR) to State employees and pensioners at Central rates, the Punjab and Haryana High Court ordered on Tuesday (November 3) by issuing notice of motion [Nirmal Singh Dhanoa and Others v. KAP Sinha, IAS and Others].
The order was passed by Justice Harsh Bunger in the contempt petition. Chief Secretary K.A.P. Sinha appeared in person and accepted notice in Court.
Interest is not a substitute for compliance
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the State and PSPCL, submitted that their Special Leave Petition had been filed on September 1, 2026 and re-filed on October 1, 2026 after registry objections, that all objections had been cured, and that the SLP was yet to be listed. He sought more time. The State also argued that the clause providing 6% interest for delayed payment meant delay could not amount to wilful disobedience.
Opposing the request, Senior Advocate Sanjay Kaushal, for the employees, argued that mere pendency of an SLP, without a stay, cannot justify non-compliance.
Justice Bunger rejected the interest argument, holding that the interest clause was compensatory and not an alternative mode of compliance.
“…the provision for payment of interest was intended to operate as a compensatory measure in favour of the employees and pensioners and not as an alternative mode of compliance available to the respondents. The obligation to release the amounts within the stipulated period was independent of, and in addition to, the liability to pay interest in the event of default.”
The State’s reading, the Court said, would let the State and PSPCL withhold the amounts indefinitely simply by agreeing to bear 6% interest.
ALSO READ: Punjab And Haryana High Court Imposes Rs 1 Lakh Costs On Chief Secretary Over DA Dues
A pending SLP is not a stay
The Court relied on Israr Ahmad Khan v. Amarnath Prasad (2026), where the Supreme Court deprecated defaulting parties citing diary or filing numbers of appeals to secure adjournments in contempt matters, and on Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. Union of India (2012). It held:
“Merely pursuing the remedy of Special Leave Petition, without obtaining any order staying the operation of the judgment, cannot furnish a justification for continued non-compliance.”
Particularly given the sufficient opportunities already afforded, the conduct of the State of Punjab and PSPCL, the Court found, “prima facie reflects wilful disobedience of the specific and binding directions issued by the Hon’ble Division Bench vide order dated 03.08.2026, which cannot be countenanced in law.”
ALSO READ: Punjab And Haryana HC Calls Punjab’s DA Appeal Delay Deliberate, Asks If State Has Rs 520
How the dispute reached this stage
A Single Judge directed payment of DA/DR arrears on April 8, 2026. On August 3, 2026, a Division Bench dismissed the intra-court appeals of the State of Punjab and the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL), led by LPA No. 1437 of 2026, and modified only the timelines. It directed that all pending DA/DR instalments be released at the rates paid to All India Services officers serving in Punjab within a fortnight, by August 18, 2026, with 6% simple interest on any amount left unpaid, and that the Chief Secretary file a compliance affidavit by August 31, 2026.
Until the dues were cleared, the State was told not to spend on unproductive expenditure such as large-scale advertising campaigns.
No compliance report had been filed by October 27, 2026, when the Court imposed costs of Rs 1 lakh, directed the Chief Secretary to file a personal affidavit explaining an August 17, 2026 memorandum of the State, and required him to appear in person.
The status report
A status report by way of affidavit dated October 30, 2026 was placed on record by the Chief Secretary, along with a receipt for payment of the Rs 1 lakh costs. The Court noted that what had been filed was a status report and not a compliance report. The report put the total pending liability at about Rs 32,418 crore, with an additional recurring liability of about Rs 4,712 crore a year if DA is paid at Central rates, and acknowledged that the August 3 orders bind the State, that there is no stay, and that its liability to pay with 6% interest subsists.
It was conceded that no compliance affidavit had been filed by August 31 and no compliance made.
The directions
Respondent No. 1, the Chief Secretary, must show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him for wilful disobedience and non-compliance of the August 3, 2026 directions in LPA No. 1437 of 2026 and connected matters. He sought ten days to reply. The reply is to be filed on or before November 13, 2026, with an advance copy to opposing counsel. The matter is listed on November 17, 2026 at 12 noon, and the Chief Secretary must remain physically present.
Why the order matters
A judgment binds from the day it is pronounced, and filing an appeal does not suspend it unless the appellate court grants a stay. The order restates that settled rule of contempt law: a State cannot treat a pending SLP, still unlisted, as an informal stay and keep seeking time in contempt proceedings.
The ruling on the interest clause is equally significant for service-law decrees. Interest on delayed payment compensates the employee; it does not give the employer an option to pay late. With the State’s own status report putting the pending liability at about Rs 32,418 crore, the Court has now moved from costs to a formal show-cause on contempt against the State’s senior-most civil servant. No finding of contempt has yet been recorded.
Case Title: Nirmal Singh Dhanoa and Others v. KAP Sinha, IAS and Others [COCP No. 4013 of 2026 (O&M)]
Bench: Justice Harsh Bunger, Punjab and Haryana High Court
Date of Order: November 3, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Sanjay Kaushal with Advocates Sunny Singla, Riti Aggarwal and Arjun Kaushal for the petitioners; Senior Advocate Vikas Singh (through VC) and Senior Advocate Chanchal Singla with Additional AG Ferry Safat, Senior DAG Nirmaljit Singh Diwana and Advocate Kavita Joshi for the respondents