The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday issued a contempt of court notice to Chief Secretary KP Sinha for misrepresenting facts about the filing of Punjab government's appeal before the Supreme Court against the High Court's recent order for payment of pending dearness allowance (DA) to government employees.

On August 3, the High Court had directed the State to release all up-to-date pending installments of dearness allowance/dearness relief (DA/DR) to all its employees and pensioners, respectively, at the same rates as paid to the All India Services (IAS/IPS/IFS) officers serving within Punjab.

The judgment, which also bars the government from resorting to any unproductive expenditures such as large-scale advertising campaigns in print or social media till non-payment of the dues, has been challenged by the State before the Supreme Court. However, the appeal has been before the top court Registry since September 1, owing to defects.

On Tuesday, the High Court had sought a report from the Supreme Court Registry about the status of the SLP moved by the State.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor today noted that the report clearly depicts that the defects pointed out by the Supreme Court Registry have not been removed.

It noted that this was in contrast to the statement made by the Chief Secretary on Monday that the government had re-filed the SLP after removing the defects. It thus sought an explanation from Chief Secretary Sinha.

"From the materials placed on record, we prima facie find that there is a deliberate misstatement of fact made by the Chief Secretary before the Court. We are issuing notice to the Chief Secretary to explain as to why proceedings of criminal contempt be not initiated against him for willfully misleading this Court by making false assertions," the Court said.

The Court rejected Advocate General Maninderjit Singh Bedi's statement that the SLP was re-filed on October 01 and the registry may subsequently have raised some objections. It said that the Supreme Court Registry's report clearly reveals that even the re-filed SLP contains numerous defects.

"When the statement was made that appeal has been re-filed, what was intended to be conveyed to the Court was that defects in the filing of the appeal have been cured...re-fling a defective appeal when almost a month has expired since filing of the defective appeal prima facie indicates that attempt was only to misrepresent the facts before the Court," the Bench said.

The Court adjourned the matter to Friday and asked the Chief Secretary to remain present before it. Sinha was earlier summoned for Monday and Tuesday as well.

Punjab government claims bench-hunting

Today, the High Court was hearing applications highlighting the State government's failure to comply with the August 3 verdict. One of the directions required the Chief Secretary to file a compliance report by August 31.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh also appeared for the Punjab government today. He said that the Court cannot hear applications in a disposed appeal, especially when a contempt petition has been filed before a single-judge to allege non-implementation of the August 3 ruling.

"Your lordships have no jurisdiction to start in a disposed of appeal when there is a contempt already filed," Singh said.

In this context, Singh said that the applicants were resorting to bench-hunting. However, the Court was not convinced with the submission.

"Please be conscious and careful about what you say," Chief Justice Mishra told Singh.

Singh went on to submit that the Court was "being used" by "politically motivated" applicants. He added that Assembly elections are around the corner in the State but the "Court has nothing to do with the elections."

At this, the Court said,

"We are conscious we are not going to get into issues of political aspects. That is something which we observed on day one."

The Court added that it was amazed that despite repeated opportunities, the State was failing to clear the defects in the SLP.

In response, Singh reiterated his submission that the Court cannot hear the applications when a contempt petition is pending before the single-bench.

"Please appreciate...we live in a country where there is a rule of law," Singh said.

Singh added that filing an SLP is not an easy job. However, the Court said,

"With rich experience that you have and some experience which we may have had on the other side, it does take time, maybe a few days, maybe a week's time, but it is not something that an indefinite period would be consumed in filing or during the defect in an appeal."

It added that it has been adjourning the matter repeatedly to accommodate the State.

"This Court has to ensure that this Court would be run by rule of law and we may tell you what is happening before us in this particular matter is rather unusual, strange; we don't approve of it," Chief Justice Mishra said.

In response to the State's submissions, Senior Advocate Sanjay Kaushal, representing the applicants, argued that the Court has not become functus officio in the matter, as while disposing of the case, it had issued a direction for filing of compliance. He added that the applicants were original petitioners or intervenors before the Court.

In the order passed today, the Court said that the Chief Secretary was under an obligation to file an affidavit before October 31, but no such affidavit was filed. It added that the matter was again taken up to hear the applications filed under Article 215 of the Constitution.

The Court noted that it refrained from passing any order on the applications after the State government said that it had filed an SLP to challenge the verdict. It added that since even after repeated opportunities the State failed to clear the defects raised by the Supreme Court Registry, it was compelled to summon the Chief Secretary.

Considering the defects in the SLP are yet to be removed, the Court observed that it cannot approve the State's conduct in the matter. After Singh sought time to appear physically before the Court, the matter was adjourned.