Clarify stand on DA payment to employees, HC tells PSPCL

The directions from the bench of acting chief justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and justice Rohit Kapoor came during the hearing of an appeal filed by the Punjab government and PSPCL against a single-judge bench’s April 8 order

The Punjab and Haryana high court has asked the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) managing director to file a personal affidavit clarifying whether the corporation takes independent decisions regarding release of Dearness Allowance (DA) to its employees or is following the Punjab government’s decision in respect of its employees.

The PSPCL argument is that there are independent rules and regulations for its employees and thus, it is aggrieved by the April 8 order. (Shutterstock)

The directions from the bench of acting chief justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and justice Rohit Kapoor came during the hearing of an appeal filed by the Punjab government and PSPCL against a single-judge bench’s April 8 order.

In its order, the single-judge bench had directed the state to pay pending DA to employees and pensioners by June 30 on par with rates paid to All India Services (IAS/IPS/IFS) officers on central government pattern, which the government has failed to meet.

The bench had underlined that once the government had accepted the recommendation of the 6th Pay Commission with regard to DA, the benefits arising from the said recommendations cannot be denied to the petitioners. It had also asserted that the state can’t deny the payment on the grounds of its financial position and priorities.

If released, the DA’s financial liability is estimated at ₹14,191.

The government had given a liquidation plan according to which these benefits were to be released up to 2028 in a phased manner. However, the single-judge bench did not accept it and gave a deadline of June 30.

The PSPCL argument is that there are independent rules and regulations for its employees and thus, it is aggrieved by the April 8 order. It also argues that it was not heard before passing the order. Another argument is that employees of the corporation can’t claim parity with state government employees.

The division bench, however, observed that PSPCL, while being an independent autonomous body created by the state, had consistently followed the policy and decisions of the state government in the matter of DA payment. The PSPCL managing director has been told to clarify the corporation’s stand by Thursday, when the hearing will resume.