Justice Sandeep Moudgil took serious note of the Chief Secretary's failure to appear despite an earlier direction and his failure to respond to a show-cause notice concerning the initiation of contempt proceedings.

The Court observed that the State's repeated failure to file its replies in time was delaying the adjudication of long-pending cases, including those involving employees who had retired or passed away while awaiting a decision.

The Court said:

"Such attempts of the State Government are nothing less than an attempt to further delay the matter and derail the process and the endeavour of the High Court, which has started listing old matters on a priority basis, high up in the cause list, and all efforts are being made to decide them with utmost urgency..."

The Court noted that despite several opportunities, the State had failed to file the written statements on behalf of the concerned respondents. On an earlier occasion, the statements were brought to the courtroom only on the date of hearing, leaving the State counsel without sufficient opportunity to examine them and argue the matter.

It observed that the High Court was making efforts to dispose of old cases on priority, particularly because several employees involved in such litigation had either retired from service or passed away, leaving their families and legal representatives awaiting the outcome.

The Court also criticised the State for making what it described as false averments before a Division Bench while challenging an earlier order imposing costs of ₹2 lakh.

"The Bench cannot be expected to act and work as a post office, receiving the document in Court every time, since the Registry has to scan the records, scrutinizing it as well in so many aspect and affix the same with the Court file and also to carry out page numbering," the Court observed.

The Court further said that the State's conduct reflected a disregard for its directions and was obstructing efforts to dispose of cases pending for several years.

The matter arose from a writ petition filed in 2001, in which the State had repeatedly failed to file written statements despite opportunities granted by the High Court.

On September 30, 2026, the Single Judge imposed costs of ₹2 lakh for the State's failure to file its written statements. The Court also issued a show-cause notice asking why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against the Punjab Chief Secretary.

The Chief Secretary was subsequently directed to appear personally before the Court.

The State challenged the September 30 order in an intra-court appeal, LPA-2995-2026. On October 12, a Division Bench stayed the imposition of ₹2 lakh costs and issued notice of motion for January 12, 2027.

However, in its October 13 order, the Single Judge clarified that the Division Bench had stayed only the costs and had not stayed either the contempt show-cause notice or the direction requiring the Chief Secretary's personal appearance.

The Court noted that the Chief Secretary had neither filed a reply to the show-cause notice nor appeared personally.

It observed that the non-compliance appeared to have occurred under the mistaken impression that the Division Bench had stayed the entire September 30 order.

The Single Judge also expressed displeasure over the submissions made by the State before the Division Bench.

"Having gone through the order passed by the Division Bench dated 12.10.2026 in LPA-2995-2026, it can be easily culled out that as a matter of record false averments have been made in an attempt to mislead the Court in the Letters Patent Appeal," the Court said.

It further recorded that all five contentions raised before the Division Bench were incorrect and contrary to the judicial record.

The State had submitted before the Division Bench that the Single Judge had refused to accept its written statement in court and directed that it be filed in the Registry.

Rejecting this characterisation, the Single Judge pointed out that the State had already been granted three opportunities to file the written statement and that the fourth opportunity had also been exhausted.

The Court explained that directing the State to file its written statement in the Registry did not amount to refusing to accept it. The Registry was required to scrutinise, scan and properly incorporate the documents into the judicial record.

It further noted that the State counsel had himself admitted that he was unable to argue the matter on merits because the written statement had been brought to court only the previous day.

This, the Court observed, resulted in another adjournment in a case pending for 25 years.

The Court also noted that despite its earlier orders, the State had again sought time to assist it because the written statement had not been filed and the State counsel did not have adequate instructions.

Taking note of the State counsel's explanation regarding the confusion over the Division Bench's stay, the Court waived the Chief Secretary's personal appearance for October 13, but expressed serious concern over his absence.

It directed the Chief Secretary to remain personally present on the next date of hearing to explain why written statements were not being filed on time, describing the resulting delay in adjudication as a grave concern.

The Court granted the State one week's time and adjourned the matter to October 28, 2026.

It also directed the Registrar (Judicial) to place copies of its previous orders, including the October 13 order, before the Division Bench when the State's appeal is taken up for hearing.