High Court Bars Punjab Govt From Undertaking Large-Scale Advertisement Campaigns Till Employees Are Paid Dearness Allowance Arrears
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday dismissed the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) appeal against a Single Judge's direction to release pending Dearness Allowance (DA) and Dearness Relief (DR) to its employees and pensioners.
Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor also restrained the State from undertaking any large-scale advertisement campaign until the dues are paid.
The division bench held that financial constraints cannot be cited as a ground to deny employees and pensioners their accrued service benefits.
"Till all such dues are cleared, the State of Punjab shall not resort to any unproductive expenditures such as large-scale advertising campaigns in print or social media as these expenses cannot justify the denial of dues admissible to State employees,"the bench held.
The Punjab Government represented through AG Punjab Maninderjit Singh Bedi had submitted that the single judge's direction for release of pending DA was "corum non judice".
The single judge had also struck down the State's “Liquidation Plan” dated February 18, 2025, which staggered payment of pension arrears based on age, terming it arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Advocate General (AG) Maninderjit Singh Bedi had submitted that the roster allocated to the Single Bench at that point of time, when the impugned order was passed, was of Statutory bodies and Corporations, and not Service roster of entire state. Therefore, the impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction, he contended.
AG Bedi added it is settled law that any order passed without jurisdiction is void ab-initio. "The Single Bench has passed judgment without jurisdiction on two grounds , the employees of the State of Punjab has never approached the court and the court does not have jurisdiction to pass any judgment qua the employees of State of Punjab because the court has roster of Boards and Corporations only," he said.
Bedi also argued that an LPA's scope is confined to what was argued before the Single Bench, citing the Patna High Court's ruling in Meera Devi Mantri v. State of Bihar, LPA No. 157 of 2025.
Opposing the submissions, counsel appearing for the respondent-employees Senior Advocate Sanjay Kaushal submitted that the argument of 'coram non judice' is far fetched because the rosters were overlapping. It was further submitted that it is categorically accepted by PSPCL that they follow the directions passed by the State hence, it is not incorrect to pass directions against the State Government.
Title: PB STATE POWER CORP LTD V/S NIRMAL SINGH DHANOA AND ORS