The Punjab and Haryana high court on Wednesday reserved its order on the pleas from Punjab government and Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) filed against the single-judge order that directed for release of Dearness Allowance (DA) to employees and pensioners by June 30.
Event Context
The high court bench of acting chief justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and justice Rohit Kapoor reserved the order after a dozen odd hearings this month.
If ordered to be released, the state’s financial liability towards DA is estimated at ₹14,191 crore.
It was not heard before passing of this order and also the employees of the corporation can’t claim parity with state government employees, it has argued.
The employees’ groups have alleged that the government has formally accepted the payment of DA/DR on central government pattern. However, it is delaying payments, citing financial constraints.
The liquidation plan, which staggers the payment of arrears into tiers based on the age of pensioners, is also not acceptable to employees. While employees and pensioners of Punjab have been denied up-to-date DA on central government pattern, All India Service Officers (IAS/IPS/IFS) are receiving these benefits in full from the same consolidated fund of the state government, they have claimed before the court.
Match Outlook
In the April 8 order, a single-judge bench had directed the state to pay pending DA to employees and pensioners by June 30 on par with rates paid to All India Services (IAS/IPS/IFS) officers on central government pattern. Once the government accepted the recommendation of the 6th Pay Commission with regard to DA, the benefits arising from the said recommendations could not be denied, it had said.
The government has argued that in 2025, a division bench had already approved a plan in which the government had got time till 2028. The single-judge bench could, thus, not have overruled the division bench directions.
“The judgment travels beyond the permissible limits of judicial review by entering into the domain of fiscal policy and financial administration of the state. The directions issued, if implemented, would impose an immediate and substantial financial burden, disrupt structured fiscal planning and have wide-ranging administrative consequences,” the petition had said.
Towards the end of the arguments, the government even argued that if the state were to release DA on the central pattern, it should also be allowed to fix employees’ pay scales on central pattern, which effectively means reduction in monthly payouts.
On the other hand, the PSPCL argument is that there are independent rules and regulations for its employees and it is therefore aggrieved by the order of the single-judge bench.
source
The government had given a liquidation plan according to which these benefits were to be released up to 2028 in a phased manner. However, the single-judge bench did not accept it and set a deadline of June 30, which the government has failed to meet.
