2 September 2026 Punjab Khabarnama Bureau : The Punjab government has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order directing it to clear pending Dearness Allowance (DA) and Dearness Relief (DR) dues of state government employees and pensioners.
In its Special Leave Petition, the state has argued that paying around ₹14,191 crore within a fortnight is not merely difficult but “constitutionally impossible”.
Why Punjab Has Challenged the Order
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in its August 3 judgment, directed the state to release all up-to-date pending DA/DR instalments to employees and pensioners at the same rates paid to All India Services officers serving in Punjab, in line with the Central government pattern.
The court gave the state two weeks to comply and ordered that unpaid amounts would carry 6% annual simple interest after the deadline.
State Cites Constitutional Restrictions
Punjab’s government has argued that withdrawing such a large amount from the state’s Consolidated Fund cannot be done without following the constitutional budgetary procedure.
The state cited Article 266(3), along with Articles 202 to 206, to argue that expenditure from the Consolidated Fund requires legislative authorisation. It has therefore challenged the feasibility and legality of making the payment within the timeframe fixed by the High Court.
DA Liability Put at ₹14,191 Crore
According to the government’s Supreme Court petition, the total financial obligation arising from the High Court’s directions is approximately ₹14,191 crore.
Punjab had earlier approved a plan in February 2025 to liquidate DA arrears in phases over five financial years, rather than making the entire payment immediately.
What the High Court Had Ordered
The High Court had directed Punjab and PSPCL to release pending DA/DR instalments to employees and pensioners at the rates applicable to members of the All India Services serving in the state.
It also directed the Chief Secretary to ensure compliance and submit an affidavit by August 31.
Until the dues were cleared, the court said the state should avoid “unproductive expenditures”, including large-scale advertising campaigns in print and social media.
Punjab Says Its Employees Already Receive Higher DA in Some Categories
The state has also argued that the comparison with Central government employees is not straightforward.
Punjab’s petition points out that the state is currently providing 42% DA, which it says results in higher monthly pay than the Centre in five of seven comparable categories.
The government has maintained that it is willing to ensure salary parity with comparable Central government employees in terms of actual pay, while disputing the High Court’s direction and the manner in which the arrears have been calculated.
Employees’ DA Dispute
The case has its roots in long-pending demands by Punjab government employees and pensioners for delayed DA instalments.
The dispute concerns the timing and rate at which DA/DR should have been released, with employees arguing that Punjab had committed itself to following the Central pattern.
An earlier High Court judgment had examined the state’s position that DA payments were linked to Central government rates and held that accepted Pay Commission recommendations could not simply be withdrawn on the ground of financial constraints.
Employees Had Approached Supreme Court Earlier
The dispute had already moved closer to the Supreme Court before the state filed its latest challenge.
Punjab government employees and pensioners had filed a caveat in the apex court, anticipating that the state could challenge the High Court order. A caveat ensures that the court does not grant interim relief to the government without first giving the employees an opportunity to be heard.
Financial Pressure on Punjab
The DA dispute comes amid continuing concerns over Punjab’s finances.
The state government has maintained that immediately paying thousands of crores would place an enormous burden on the exchequer and interfere with budgetary priorities.
Employees, however, argue that the arrears represent benefits already due to them and should not be indefinitely postponed because of the state’s financial position.