[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Mool Chand And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 12 March, 2026

                                            1

CWP-23651-2024 & FOUR CONNECTED CASES




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH



232(5 cases)                                      Date of decision:12.03.2026



1.                                                           CWP-23651-2024


Surinder Singh and others
                                                                 .....Petitioners
                                      VERSUS

State of Punjab and others
                                                                 .....Respondents

2.                                                           CWP-25207-2024


Mool Chand and others
                                                                 .....Petitioners
                                      VERSUS

State of Punjab and others
                                                                 .....Respondents

3.                                                           CWP-25204-2024


Boor Chand and others
                                                                 .....Petitioners
                                      VERSUS

State of Punjab and others
                                                                 .....Respondents




                                  1 of 20
               ::: Downloaded on - 14-03-2026 13:08:31 :::
                                            2

CWP-23651-2024 & FOUR CONNECTED CASES




4.                                                          CWP-25423-2024


Tara Chand and others
                                                               .....Petitioners
                                     VERSUS

State of Punjab and others
                                                               .....Respondents

5.                                                          CWP-1176-2025


Raghvir Singh and others
                                                               .....Petitioners
                                     VERSUS

State of Punjab and others
                                                               .....Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present :   Mr. Sunny Singla with Mr. Riti Aggarwal, Advocates for the
            petitioners in CWP Nos.23651, 25207, 25423 of 2024.

            Mr. P.K. Goklaney with Mr. Ashish Goklaney, Advocates for
            the petitioners in CWP-25204-2024.

            Mr. A.S. Walia, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP-1176-
            2025.

            Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Sheena Verma and
            Mr. Tanya Bhuri, Advocates for respondent No.3-Mandi Board
            in CWP-25207-2024.

            Ms. Monika Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3 in CWP-
            1176-2025.




                                 2 of 20
              ::: Downloaded on - 14-03-2026 13:08:32 :::
                                             3

CWP-23651-2024 & FOUR CONNECTED CASES




             Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for Mr. PIP Sigh, Advocate for
             respondents No.2 to 4 in CWP-23651-2024.



HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

1. All of the abovementioned writ petitions are being considered

on the basis of the facts taken from CWP No.23651 of 2024 for the sake of

brevity, as the petitions raise a common question of law and involve

identical issues.

2. The petitioners in CWP No. 23651 of 2024 are pensioners who

retired from the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (hereinafter

referred to as "PSPCL"), whereas the petitioners in the remaining writ

petitions have retired from different Boards and Corporations of the State.

The petitioners have sought the following reliefs:

(i) release of arrears of revised pension w.e.f. 01.01.2016 to

30.06.2021; and

(ii) release of arrears of revised Dearness Allowance (DA)

w.e.f. 01.07.2015 at par with the Central Government pattern

as recommended by the 6th Pay Commission.

Further, interest on the delayed payment has also been sought

in terms of Punjab Government Notification dated 29.10.2021 (Annexure P-

4), read in conjunction with the Punjab Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules,

2021 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2021 Rules").

3 of 20

CWP-23651-2024 & FOUR CONNECTED CASES

CONTENTIONS

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, submits that the

petitioners are pensioners in their sunset years and that more than 35,000

pensioners have died since 01.01.2016 while awaiting the release of arrears

of revised pension w.e.f. 01.01.2016.

4. It is further submitted that this Court in Mohinder Singh vs.

State of Punjab, CWP No. 12980 of 2015 decided on 25.07.2016, had

considered the issue relating to release of revised pension and directed that

retirees above the age of 80 years, including the petitioner therein, be paid

100% of the arrears of DA in lump sum along with interest @ 6% per

annum from the due date within a period of one month. Costs of Rs.10,000

were also imposed.

4.1 Thereafter, the State Government notified the constitution of

the 6th Pay Commission on 24.12.2016 to examine revision of salaries and

pension, keeping in view the cost of living and other relevant factors. The

Commission submitted its report on 30.05.2021. Consequently, the State

Government notified the 2021 Rules on 05.07.2021 (Annexure P-2). Rule 9

thereof provides for payment of arrears w.e.f. 01.01.2016 to 30.06.2021. The

said Rules were thereafter amended vide notification dated 20.09.2021

(Annexure P-3).

4.2 Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are entitled

not only to the release of arrears of revised pension but also to the arrears of

DA w.e.f. 01.01.2016 to 30.06.2021, since the State Government has already

4 of 20

CWP-23651-2024 & FOUR CONNECTED CASES

accepted and implemented the enhanced DA w.e.f. 01.01.2016. It is

submitted that the petitioners have been compelled to pursue prolonged

litigation to obtain their legitimate dues. With advancing age, the financial

responsibilities of the petitioners, particularly medical expenses, have

significantly increased, and in the absence of revision of pension and DA,

their purchasing power has drastically eroded due to rising prices.

4.3 Learned counsel further submits that paras 7.7 to 7.11 of the

report of the 6th Pay Commission mandate payment of DA to all State

Government employees as well as pensioners. The petitioners are also

entitled to interest on the arrears of admissible dues in view of the law laid

down by this Court in Surinder Kumar Mehta v. State of Haryana, 1995

(1) RSJ 268 and Parshotam Dass v. State of Punjab, 2016 (2) SCT 207. It

is contended that the respondents, despite amending statutory rules and

adopting the revised pension and DA, cannot indefinitely defer the payment

without any plausible justification.

4.4 Reliance has further been placed upon the orders passed by this

Court in Boota Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, CWP No.

20537 of 2023; Sukhmander Singh and others v. State of Punjab and

others, CWP No. 16597 of 2023; and Prem Singh and others v. State of

Punjab and others, CWP No. 14022 of 2023, wherein directions were

issued to release arrears of revised pension along with DA and interest in

light of the 2021 Rules.

5 of 20

CWP-23651-2024 & FOUR CONNECTED CASES

4.5 Learned counsel has further emphasised that despite the

approval of the recommendations of the Cabinet Sub-Committee by the

Council of Ministers on 13.02.2025, two State Budgets have been passed

thereafter, yet no budgetary allocation or payment has been released to the

petitioners. It is submitted that during the last decade prices of essential

commodities have increased manifold and approximately 35,000 pensioners

have died while awaiting implementation of the revised benefits.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation has

placed on record the Written Statement dated 26.08.2025, which is taken on

record. A copy thereof has been supplied to learned counsel for the

petitioners.

5.1 It is submitted that instructions dated 29.10.2021 were issued

providing that payment of arrears of pension would be made in due course.

A Cabinet Sub-Committee comprising three Cabinet Ministers, headed by

the Finance Minister of the State was constituted to examine the issue. The

Sub-Committee examined the matter and submitted its report to the State

Government, which was approved by the Council of Ministers in its meeting

held on 13.02.2025. A schedule of payment in installments was accordingly

framed for pensioners as well as serving employees. The same was adopted

by the Power Corporation vide Finance Circular dated 03.04.2025

(Annexure R-1).

5.2 Learned counsel for the petitioners, in rebuttal, submits that the

pensioners are not being paid the revised admissible benefits in terms of the

6 of 20

CWP-23651-2024 & FOUR CONNECTED CASES

schedule of payment approved by the Council of Ministers on 13.02.2025. It

is contended that the respondents are in continuous default, which is not

only contrary to the decision of the Council of Ministers but also against the

ratio of law laid down in Surinder Kumar (supra) and Parshotam Dass

(supra). As such, it stands duly established that the respondents have

abdicated their obligation to pay the revised dues and have effectively

abandoned the pensioners who had rendered long, unblemished and

dedicated service in the twilight of their lives.

OBSERVATION & ANALYSIS

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record with their able assistance, the primary grievance raised by the

petitioners is the withholding of the financial benefits despite the revision

having been accepted pursuant to the recommendations of the Pay

Commission. Admittedly it emerges that the petitioners in all the writ

petitions are retired employees drawing pension from Boards and

Corporations of the State. The petitioners in CWP No. 23651 of 2024 have

retired from the respondent PSPCL.

7. A perusal of the reply dated 07.07.2025 filed on behalf of the

Under Secretary, Power Corporation, as well as the reply dated 26.08.2025

filed by the respondent Corporation, does not dispute the entitlement of the

petitioners to revised pension along with arrears of revised DA. Further, in

terms of the order passed by this Court in Mohinder Singh (supra), a

circular was issued on 15.12.2016 (Annexure R-2).

7 of 20

CWP-23651-2024 & FOUR CONNECTED CASES

"I am directed to refer to this Department's Letter No. 3/2/97- 1FP1/354 dated 27.06.2016 and to convey that in compliance with the orders dated 25.07.2016 of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh vide CWP No. 12980 of 2015 titled as Mohinder Singh V/s State of Punjab and Others, the Governor of Punjab is pleased to release the arrears of Dearness Relief w.e.f. 01.07.2014 to 28.02.2015 @ 7% and 01.01.2014 to 30.09.2014 @ 10% to the Punjab Government Pensioners in cash as under:-

i) 100% arrears of the above relief to the pensioners above 80 years by 31.12.2016.

ii) 100% arrear of the above relief to the pensioners above 75 years by 31.01.2017.

Rest of the instructions issued vide letter dated 3/2/97- 1FP1/354 dated 27.06.2016 remain unchanged."

8. A similar circular was also issued on 03.04.2017 (Annexure R-

3). Further, a Sub-Committee was constituted on 19.08.2024 to deliberate

upon the issue regarding pension and DA. The recommendations of the said

Committee were approved by the Council of Ministers on 13.02.2025, which

are reproduced as under:

"(1) For the State Pensioners/Family Pensioners a. Pensioners / Family Pensioners age 85 years and above (as on 01.10.2024) and deceased family pensioners- During the Financial Year 2024-25 payment of arrear of Revised Pension/Family Pension (including DR arrear) (as per 6th PPC) will be made in two equal monthly installments (Feb.,

8 of 20

CWP-23651-2024 & FOUR CONNECTED CASES

2025 and March, 2025) to the pensioners/ Family Pensioners having age of 85 years and above and deceased family pensioners (to their legal heirs).

b. Pensioners/Family pensioners age 75 years but below 85 years (as on 01.10.2024) and deceased pensioners During the Financial Year 2025-26 payment of arrear of Revised Pension/Family Pension (including DR arrear) (as per 6th PPC) will be made in 12 equal monthly installments (April, 2025 to March, 2026) to the pensioners age 75 years but below 85 years and deceased pensioners (to the family pensioner / legal heirs).

c. Pensioners/Family Pensioners age below 75 years- Payment of arrear of Revised Pension/Family Pension (including DR arrear) will be made in 42 monthly installments to the pensioners below age of 75 years as below:-

Sr. No Year to which the arrears No. of equally Period for relates Monthly payment Installments 1 For the years 2016 and 2017 15 Instalment will start from the month of April,

2 For the years 2018 and 2019 18 Instalment will start from the month of July,

9 of 20

CWP-23651-2024 & FOUR CONNECTED CASES

3 For the years 2020 and 2021 09 Instalment will (upto 30.06.2021) start from the month of January,

d. Arrears of revised Leave Encashment- Payment of arrear of revised Leave Encashment of the Government employees retired between 01.01.2016 to 30.06.2021 will be made in 04 equal six monthly installments (i.e. April, 2025, October, 2025, April, 2026 and October, 2026)

(2) For Government Employees

e. Arrear of revised pay- The payment of arrear of revised pay (including DA arrear) to the employees will be paid in 36 monthly installments as below:-

Sr.No Year to which the No. of equal Period for payment arrears relates Monthly Installments 1 For the year 2016 12 Installment will Start from the month of April, 2026 2 For the years 2017, 24 Installment will Start 2018, 2019, 2020 and from the month of 2021 (up to April, 2027 30.06.2021)

f. After liquidation of the arrears of 6th Punjab Pay Commission any arrear on account of enhanced DA/DR from 01.07.2021 to 31.03.2024 will be considered for payment in

10 of 20

CWP-23651-2024 & FOUR CONNECTED CASES

installments. However the Government may also consider for early payment keeping in view the financial resources of the State."

9. More than one year has elapsed since the approval of the

schedule of payments by the Cabinet and more than four years have passed

since the notification of the 2021 Rules. In the above backdrop, the

controversy before this Court does not relate to the existence of the right

itself, for the entitlement of the petitioners to revised pension and arrears of

Dearness Allowance is not disputed by the respondents. The limited

question that arises for consideration is whether the respondents can

indefinitely defer the implementation of statutory and policy decisions,

despite the acceptance of the recommendations of the Pay Commission and

the approval of the payment schedule by the Council of Ministers. The issue,

therefore, concerns not merely the financial claims of the petitioners but the

obligation of the State and its instrumentalities to faithfully implement

decisions taken in accordance with the governing statutory framework.

10. The procedural framework governing Cabinet decisions is

firmly established under the Rules of Business. Once the Council of

Ministers approves a decision, a copy thereof, along with the essential points

recorded during discussions, is required to be forwarded by the Chief

Secretary to the Secretary of the concerned Department for action in terms

of Rule 30. Upon receipt, the Department is statutorily obliged to

acknowledge the decision and take prompt and effective steps for its

11 of 20

CWP-23651-2024 & FOUR CONNECTED CASES

implementation. The Secretary of the sponsoring Department bears the

responsibility to consult or inform any other connected Department to

ensure coordinated and complete execution of the Cabinet's mandate.

10.1 Keeping a Cabinet decision in a state of suspended animation

for an inordinately long period is not merely a procedural irregularity; it is

fundamentally opposed to public interest and violative of the statutory

scheme embodied in the Rules of Business. If decisions taken by the highest

executive body are allowed to languish without implementation, the entire

exercise of collective deliberation stands reduced to an empty formality. The

essence of governance lies not merely in the act of taking decisions but in

translating them into concrete outcomes that benefit stakeholders. Any

undue or unexplained delay in implementation not only defeats the

collective will of the Cabinet but also erodes public confidence in the

executive process and the rule of law.

11. Dearness Allowance (DA) constitutes an integral component of

the remuneration structure of government employees as well as pensioners

and is intended to offset the adverse effects of inflation on the real value of

wages. It operates as a cost-of-living adjustment whereby a portion of salary

or pension is periodically revised in accordance with movements in the

Consumer Price Index (CPI). The underlying principle is that while nominal

wages may remain fixed, inflation steadily erodes purchasing power. DA

therefore functions as a compensatory mechanism to preserve the real

income of employees and pensioners and to enable them to meet essential

12 of 20

CWP-23651-2024 & FOUR CONNECTED CASES

living expenses such as food, housing, healthcare, and education. By linking

wage adjustments to the price index, the system of DA seeks to ensure that

employees and pensioners are not subjected to financial hardship arising

from market-driven price escalation and that their standard of living remains

reasonably protected.

12. The importance of timely disbursal of DA and revised

admissible benefits assumes considerable significance, for any delay in its

release effectively defeats its very purpose. DA is intended to compensate

employees and pensioners at the time when prices rise and not

retrospectively after long intervals. Prompt release of DA safeguards the

financial stability of employees and their families, enables them to cope with

immediate inflationary pressures, sustains morale and efficiency in public

service, and prevents erosion of real wages and pensions caused by rising

costs. Conversely, delayed disbursal undermines the protective function of

DA and places employees and pensioners under unnecessary economic

stress, particularly those who are dependent upon pension for their

sustenance in advanced years.

13. The constitutional philosophy underlying the grant of DA finds

support in the Preamble's commitment to social and economic justice and is

reinforced by Article 14 of the Constitution, which mandates fairness and

non-arbitrariness in State action, Article 21 which guarantees the right to

live with dignity, and Article 43 of the Directive Principles of State Policy

which enjoins the State to secure a living wage and a decent standard of life

13 of 20

CWP-23651-2024 & FOUR CONNECTED CASES

for workers. DA, therefore, cannot be viewed merely as a financial

concession or discretionary benefit but must be understood as a protective

instrument intended to shield employees and pensioners from the adverse

effects of inflation and to ensure that salaries and pensions remain

responsive to changing economic conditions in a manner consistent with the

constitutional mandate of social and economic justice.

14. A Two-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of

West Bengal v. Confederation of State Government Employees, West

Bengal, 2026 INSC 123, while speaking through Justice Sanjay Karol,

observed as under:

"22. What flows from the above, and other judgments of this Court is that the concept of DA is a distinctly Indian response to the problem of inflation and its impact on wages, developed to safeguard employees against the steady erosion of their real income caused by rising prices. Different from the position in other countries where the wages and salaries themselves undergo a periodic adjustment, India introduced a DA as a compensatory measure to address rises or jumps in the cost of living. While originally conceived as a short-

term arrangement, it acquired a sense of permanence, given that it was almost within the realms of certainty that the prices would not return to their original state. When this expectation proved unrealistic and inflation appeared to be a continuing feature of the economy, a portion of the DA was absorbed into basic wages. Even after such wage revisions, however, the need for DA persisted, as prices continued to rise and purchasing power continued to decline.

14 of 20

CWP-23651-2024 & FOUR CONNECTED CASES

23. At its core, DA is not intended to provide complete neutralisation

of price rise for all employees, except in the case of the lowest paid

categories. Its purpose is to offer partial compensation for increased

living costs through a variable and flexible mechanism, usually

linked to a cost-of-living index. This explains why DA is commonly

structured on a sliding scale, rising alongside prices.

48. In the instant facts, the effect that flows from the above discussion is that once the High Court in the 'Judgment in Round One' had declared the receipt of DA to be a legally enforceable right and a review sought against this judgment stood dismissed with no appeal to this Court being filed, the findings arrived at therein, would attain finality and thereby bind the parties to that proceeding. Once a legally enforceable right has been established, the defence of the appellant - State so as to its financial ability or rather inability has to be kept at bay. The only question that remains thereafter is, how such a right has to be enforced, and considering the nature of the right, at what rate. The answer to this question, as we have already discussed in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment is that the right has to be enforced in accordance with AICPI.

59.2 To receive dearness allowance is a legally enforceable right that has accrued in favour of the respondents-employees of the State of West Bengal."

(emphasis added)

15 of 20

CWP-23651-2024 & FOUR CONNECTED CASES

15. The case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the aforesaid

judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court

has unequivocally held that DA is a legally enforceable and statutorily

recognised right, and not a discretionary bounty. Once the governing rules

provide for its payment, the State is under a corresponding obligation to

release the same. The plea of financial constraints was expressly rejected by

the Court, observing that constitutional obligations cannot be defeated on the

ground of paucity of funds. The Court further clarified that DA is inherently

dynamic and must necessarily be linked to the All India Consumer Price

Index (AICPI). While each State may assess its fiscal position, it cannot

deviate from the statutory mechanism governing the calculation and

payment of DA. The judgment also emphasised the need for structured

implementation so that the rights of employees and pensioners, including

those who have retired during the pendency of litigation, are duly protected

without causing fiscal dislocation.

CONCLUSION

16. In the present case, the entitlement of the petitioners to revised

pension and arrears of DA is not in dispute. Even as per the stand taken by

the respondents, a payment schedule was approved by the Council of

Ministers in its meeting dated 13.02.2025. However, despite the passage of

considerable time thereafter, the benefits have not been released in

accordance with the said schedule. Such delay, particularly in matters

16 of 20

CWP-23651-2024 & FOUR CONNECTED CASES

relating to pensionary benefits of retired employees, cannot be

countenanced.

17. In view of the above, all the five writ petitions are allowed.

Consequently, all up-to-date instalments in terms of the payment plan

approved by the Council of Ministers on 13.02.2025 which had fallen due

till 28.02.2025 shall be released to all pensioners on or before 30.04.2026,

together with interest @ 6% per annum on delayed payment, along with

arrears of leave encashment payable till April 2026.

18. It is further directed that all pensioners of the State of Punjab

including the petitioners, shall be paid the admissible revised dues strictly in

accordance with the schedule approved by the Council of Ministers in its

meeting dated 13.02.2025. Any default or deviation from the said schedule

shall entail payment of interest @ 9% per annum on the delayed amount till

its actual realization.

19. It must be clarified that the present judgment shall operate as a

judgment in rem, intended to extend the benefit to all similarly situated

persons irrespective of whether they have approached this Court or not.

Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by a Two-

Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v.

Arvind Kumar Srivastava, 2014(4) SCT 648, wherein the Court observed as

under:

17 of 20

CWP-23651-2024 & FOUR CONNECTED CASES

"23. The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under:

(1) Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently. (2) However, this principle is subject to well recognised exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-

sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.

(3) However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated person. Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision touches upon the policy

18 of 20

CWP-23651-2024 & FOUR CONNECTED CASES

matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India (supra). On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence."

(emphasis added)

20. Keeping in view the fact that pensioners across the State of

Punjab are facing hardship on account of non-payment of arrears of revised

pension, leave encashment, and DA, and further considering that this Court

is repeatedly confronted with petitions seeking identical relief, a direction is

issued to the Chief Secretary, State of Punjab, to ensure that all admissible

benefits in terms of the directions issued herein are released to all eligible

pensioners of the State Government, Boards, Corporations, and other

statutory bodies, irrespective of whether they have approached this Court or

not.

21. The Chief Secretary shall file a compliance report by way of an

affidavit of a responsible officer within a period of three months from the