Punjab Govt Challenges Order Directing Release Of DA Arrears To Employees, Says Single Judge Lacked Jurisdiction

The Punjab Government represented through AG Punjab Maninderjit Singh Bedi has told the High Court that a single judge's direction for release of pending Dearness Allowance (DA) to Punjab government employees and pensioners was "corum non judice".

Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor was hearing a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) against order of the single judge directing the Punjab Government to release all pending installments of DA and Dearness Relief (DR) to its employees and pensioners in line with the Central Government pattern, holding that financial constraints cannot be a ground to deny accrued service benefits.

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 today 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.

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.

Reliance was placed on various judgements including State of Punjab vs Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (2011), State of U.P. vs. Neeraj Choubey 2010.

"The appropriate procedure would have been that the Single Bench sent the matter to registry to place it before the appropriate bench subject to approval of the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice may keep the case itself or may send it to the any appropriate bench," he added.

It was further submitted that petitioners before the single judge were employees of PSPCL [Punjab State Power Corporation Limited] (a separate legal entity) and therefore, cannot seek relief from the State.

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.

After hearing the submissions, the Court adjourned the case to July 22.

Title: PB STATE POWER CORP LTD V/S NIRMAL SINGH DHANOA AND ORS

AG Punjab Sr. Advocate Maninderjit Singh Bedi, Sr Ad AG Anu Chatrath, Ad AG Maninder Singh, DAG Rajeev Madan, Sr DAG Salil Sablok appeared for Punjab Govt.