The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a plea filed by the Punjab Government challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order initiating criminal contempt proceedings against Chief Secretary K.A.P. Sinha in connection with the non-payment of dearness allowance (DA) arrears to government employees and pensioners.
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the State of Punjab, submitted that the State’s Special Leave Petition challenging the High Court’s August 3 order directing payment of DA and Dearness Relief (DR) arrears had been re-filed on October 1, 2026, after curing registry defects. He argued that the Supreme Court Registry had raised further objections only on the evening of October 5, after the High Court hearing earlier that day.
The dispute originates from the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s August 3, 2026 judgment directing the State Government and the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) to release pending DA/DR instalments to employees and pensioners within a fortnight, with 6% simple interest on delayed payments.
The State contended that the Chief Secretary had not deliberately misled the High Court and that a delay in getting the SLP listed could not, by itself, amount to criminal contempt.
The plea challenges the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s October 12 order issuing notice to Chief Secretary K.A.P. Sinha to show cause why criminal contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him. The proceedings stem from an alleged misstatement in an affidavit concerning the status of the State’s appeal before the Supreme Court.
The State also argued that a separate civil contempt petition over non-compliance with the DA payment directions was already pending before the High Court and that the criminal contempt proceedings could not be used to bypass the prescribed procedure.
During the hearing, counsel referred to the substantial financial liability arising from the High Court’s directions and submitted that around ₹5,000 crore had already been paid under the liquidation plan. He also questioned the direction to clear a much larger amount within a fortnight.
The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana indicated that it would prefer to hear the State’s main challenge to the DA arrears judgment, observing that if the State succeeded in obtaining relief in that matter, it would address the underlying dispute. The Court directed the Registry to list both matters the following day and permitted the State to inform the High Court that its challenge was coming up before the Supreme Court.