Chandigarh, Sep 10 (IANS) : The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Thursday came down heavily on the Punjab government for failing to file a compliance report despite its earlier order on the dearness allowance (DA) of employees and pensioners, making it clear that filing an appeal in the Supreme Court cannot be used as a ground to put implementation of a judicial order on hold.
The High Court said the state was well within its rights to challenge an order, but once an order had been passed, its compliance could not be deferred merely because an appeal had been filed.
The Bench directed the state to remove the defects in its appeal and get it listed for an early hearing.
“Don’t try to play. Don’t try to hoodwink the court. Do not try to play games with the court. You have a right of appeal. Please pursue that right,” a Division Bench of Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor observed.
The High Court was hearing applications relating to alleged non-compliance with the High Court’s August 3 judgment directing Punjab and the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited to release all pending DA and DR instalments at the Central government rates.
Questioning the state’s reference to the 90-day period for filing an appeal, the High Court observed the state would also have to explain what would happen to the directions already issued by the court during this period.
The court made it clear that the right to appeal and compliance with a judicial order were two separate issues.
“Stop playing games with the court,” the Bench told the state, while cautioning it against adopting tactics that could delay the legal process.
The state counsel submitted that an appeal had already been filed and that steps were being taken to remove the defects pointed out in it.
The court directed the state to complete the process expeditiously and ensure that the appeal was placed before the appropriate Bench for an early hearing.
It also clarified that it was not seeking to curtail the state’s statutory right to appeal. However, the court said a party must pursue the legal remedy available to it in accordance with law and cannot use the filing of an appeal as a shield against compliance with an existing order.
During the hearing, the state also referred to contempt proceedings pending in the matter. It was submitted that the original petitioners had already moved a contempt petition and the proceedings were pending.
The state expressed apprehension that parallel proceedings could result in multiplicity of litigation.
The court, however, observed that if the state was aggrieved by the original order, the appropriate course was to seek an early hearing of its appeal rather than delay compliance.
The petitioners pointed out that some of the people involved in the matter were as old as 95 years, underscoring the need for an early resolution.
The court directed the parties to proceed strictly in accordance with law and emphasised that unnecessary delay should be avoided, particularly when the matter concerns elderly applicants.
The court’s observations came against the backdrop of the state’s failure to file the compliance report despite the earlier directions, prompting the Bench to insist that judicial orders cannot be kept in abeyance at the convenience of a litigating party.
