The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed criminal contempt proceedings initiated by the Punjab and Haryana High Court against Punjab chief secretary KAP Sinha over the state government’s failure to comply with its directions on payment of pending dearness allowance (DA) arrears to employees and pensioners, questioning the need to send the top bureaucrat to jail over the dispute.
A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan passed the order after senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the additional chief secretary and the state government, informed the court that Sinha was being hauled up for criminal contempt by the high court in a matter that had already been disposed of. “You cannot press for contempt based on their internal communication. We do not appreciate such arm-twisting. It also took note of the background of the disputes between the parties that had led to the contempt petition. The high court had directed the government and Punjab State Power Corporation Limited to clear the dues within a fortnight, with six per cent annual interest on delayed payments. After the state failed to meet the deadline, employees and pensioners approached the high court alleging non-compliance. The high court also questioned the government’s continued failure to implement its directions despite having approached the Supreme Court, making it clear that merely filing an appeal did not absolve the state of its obligation to comply unless the order was stayed or modified by the apex court.
In its order, the court said it had examined the high court’s October 12 order and a subsequent order dated October 13, directing Sinha to remain personally present before it on Thursday. The proceedings arise from the Punjab government’s failure to implement the high court’s August 3 directions to release pending DA and dearness relief (DR) instalments to employees and pensioners at rates applicable to All India Services officers serving in the state, in line with the Central government pattern. Because of these departmental communications,” said the bench, you cannot initiate criminal contempt. Because the state government intended to approach the Supreme Court could, by itself, amount to criminal contempt, it questioned whether a decision by the chief secretary to advise against compliance.
“If the chief secretary asks for not complying because they are going to the Supreme Court, will it be criminal contempt?” asked the bench.
