Does Punjab government have ₹520? P&H High Court calls out State's delaying tactics in DA case

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday said Punjab government's conduct regarding the payment of Dearness Allowance (DA) to employees and pensioners did not inspire confidence, as it had failed to take steps to get its appeal against the High Court's ruling listed before the Supreme Court.

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 petition has been before the top court's registry since September 1 owing to defects.

While hearing a plea alleging non-compliance with the direction for filing of compliance affidavit by Chief Secretary KAP Sinha, a bench of Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj and Justice Ravinder Malik today said there appeared to be a deliberate attempt to interfere in the administration of justice.

"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.

Referring to the non-payment of court fees, which was one of the reasons the Supreme Court registry had not cleared the State government's appeal, the Court remarked:

"₹520 hai abhi Punjab sarkar k pass (Does Punjab government even have ₹520 right now)?"

The bench was referring to the court fees payable at the Supreme Court.

The Court wondered whether the State government would argue that even non-payment of ₹520 was on account of fiscal deficit. The Court said the defects like non-payment of court fees were trivial in nature.

"Now if these things are not being done, then it is definitely a deliberate and designed effort to interfere in the administration of justice because you are taking a specific defence that 'I am not in a position to comply, I really intend to but SLP is not being listed.' It is not an institutional failure in not listing the appeal. It is your positive act to ensure that it is not listed. These are the issues that would come up," the bench said.

The Court also said that it was up to the government to take its financial decisions but statutory obligations cannot be made subject to a populist agenda.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the Punjab government, alleged that applicants before the Court were trying to make a political issue out of the case as the State is soon going for assembly elections.

On reference to freebies and advertisements, Singh said the issues have been dealt with by the Supreme Court.

"If governments are not able to disclose to the people the good work they are doing, they can't remain in power. If they can't remain in power, they can't do the good work. So it is not a small question," the senior counsel said.

At this, the Court said,

"Mr. Singh, we have no objection if you have your advertisement on moon. We have no doubt in our mind that so far as the fiscal priorities are concerned, that is the domain of the executive and the political leadership. You may put your hoarding on the Moon or Mars, we are not concerned."

Singh also made submissions with regard to the Court’s remarks on non-payment of court fees before the Supreme Court.

"You lordships said about ₹520. That is a purely AOR job. That has got nothing to do with the State finances. AOR has to pay that money. It is not as if there is any fiscal indiscipline. If your lordships say that, it gives an impression as if your lordships have taken judicial notice of the fact," he said.

The Court said "there is something called fixing of an accountability" in a matter with high stakes. However, it clarified that no judicial notice has been taken so far in this regard.

"But if need be, we might... this is something based on record. Therefore, it is a judicial fact. It is fact to be taken judicial notice of," it added.

Singh responded that there is no record that the State is unable to pay ₹520 and that it is only a matter of defect.

"If your lordships even orally say, it is a completely skewed interpretation of what actually transpired," he added.

On October 6, the Court had issued a contempt of court notice to Chief Secretary KAP Sinha for misrepresenting facts about the filing of Punjab government's appeal in Supreme Court.

In another passed on October 10, the Court also took note of an instruction issued by the Finance Secretary asking department heads not to implement the August 3 ruling.

"We are of the opinion that the applicants have prima facie reflected upon documents that bring the case within the ambit of criminal contempt, however, before defence of the respondents-contemnors can be considered, a formal notice is required to be served upon them. Notice of motion is issued to the respondents-contemnors to the Criminal Contempt," the Court ordered on October 10.

The order has also been challenged before the top court in a new SLP. The government has argued that the Court was required to take a prima facie view before issuing the notice.

Today, the High Court adjourned the matter to November 5 to allow the Chief Secretary to file a detailed affidavit to answer the allegations.

Singh earlier argued that the Chief Secretary's earlier submissions with regard to the SLP were based on communications received from the Advocate-on-Record in Supreme Court.

The Court directed the Chief Secretary to remain present on next date of hearing and warned that if the affidavit is not filed, no further opportunity will be extended.

Senior Advocate RS Cheema served as amicus curiae in the case.

Senior Advocates Sanjay Kaushal and Chetan Mittal appeared for the applicant-employees.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh represented Punjab Chief Secretary KAP Sinha. Additional Advocate General Chanchal K Singla and Ferry Sofat appeared for the State of Punjab.