Punjab and Haryana HC Issues Criminal Contempt Notice to State Over DA/DR Payments

Oct 12 Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday issued a formal notice to the Pb Govt in criminal contempt proceedings over alleged non-compliance with its directions on releasing DA and DR. The development comes just over two months after the court directed the state to submit a compliance report. Justice Bhardwaj and Justice Malik observed that the earlier referral of the matter to the Contempt Bench indicated that the government’s submissions in its affidavit had received prima facie consideration. The Bench appointed senior advocate RS Cheema as amicus curiae and directed Pb to file its reply by Oct 30. During the proceedings, senior advocates Sanjay Kaushal and Chetan Mittal, appearing for the employees, alleged that the state was attempting to delay the matter.The applicants also alleged that Punjab had issued advertisements in 28 newspapers despite a restraint. Punjab was represented by senior advocates Vikas Singh and Chanchal K Singla, along with advocate Ferry Sofat. On the previous hearing date, before referring the matter, Chief Justice Mishra and Justice Kapoor had emphasized that the court was duty-bound to protect its authority and dignity. The Bench directed that the matter be placed before the Bench authorized to hear criminal contempt under the roster, after obtaining administrative orders. The dispute originates from a common judgment delivered on April 8, directing the Pb Govt to release DA and DR to its employees and pensioners. The state was initially required to comply by June 30, with the CS directed to file an affidavit confirming implementation. In its August 3 judgment, Justice Mishra and Justice Kapoor dismissed appeals filed by the state government and PSPCL, upholding the Single Judge’s directions. However, it revised the implementation schedule directing the release of outstanding DA/DR instalments within a fortnight. The controversy subsequently intensified over an affidavit filed by the Chief Secretary. During the hearing, the officer informed the court that defects in the Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) challenging its orders before the Supreme Court had been rectified and that the petitions had been re-filed. The opposing side disputed this claim. After examining a report from the Supreme Court Registry concerning the status of the two SLPs, the High Court prima facie found the Chief Secretary’s statement in the affidavit to be “palpably false”. It issued notice to him to explain why criminal contempt proceedings should not be initiated for allegedly “willfully misleading” the court. Senior advocate Vikas Singh argued that the CS had no deliberate intention to make a false statement regarding the removal of defects in the SLPs. He submitted that the officer was willing to tender an unconditional apology if the court considered it appropriate. The applicants opposed the offer, with senior advocates Kaushal and Mittal arguing that an apology did not merit consideration in view of what they described as deliberate and contemptuous conduct by the state, including an attempt to scandalise the court’s proceedings. They maintained that the averments contained in the affidavits prima facie established criminal contempt.