A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor held that financial constraints cannot be cited as a reason 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 said.
The order came while dismissing PSPCL’s challenge to a single-judge ruling that had directed the release of pending DA and DR and struck down the Punjab government’s “Liquidation Plan” dated February 18, 2025. The plan had staggered the payment of pension arrears based on the age of pensioners. The single judge had held that the policy was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.
Appearing for the Punjab government, Advocate General Maninderjit Singh Bedi argued that the single judge lacked jurisdiction to pass directions affecting state government employees. He contended that the roster assigned to the bench at the time covered only statutory bodies and corporations and did not extend to service matters relating to the entire state.
Bedi argued that any order passed without jurisdiction was void. He said the single judge did not have the authority to issue the ruling, as state government employees had not approached the court and no directions could therefore have been issued in their favour. He further argued that the appeal was limited to issues argued before the single judge, citing the Patna High Court’s ruling in Meera Devi Mantri v. State of Bihar.
Opposing the appeal, senior advocate Sanjay Kaushal, appearing for the respondent employees, argued that the jurisdictional objection was misconceived because the relevant rosters overlapped. He also submitted that PSPCL had acknowledged that it followed directions issued by the Punjab government, making it appropriate for the court to issue directions to the state as well.
Rejecting the state’s objections, the division bench upheld the single-judge order and reiterated that financial difficulties cannot override statutory obligations towards employees and pensioners.
