Photo used for indicative purpose only. Source internet
HC puts HP Govt on clock over pending DA benefits
Shimla, July 31,
Himachal Pradesh High Court has directed the State Government to decide within 12 weeks the representation of a government employee seeking release of his pending Dearness Allowance (DA) benefits, even as the issue of delayed payment of service-related dues to employees continues to generate extensive litigation across the state.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel passed the order while disposing of CWP No. 6399 of 2026, Bhupender Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, on July 28. The Court permitted the petitioner to approach the competent authority through a representation instead of adjudicating the case on its merits at this stage.
The Court directed the petitioner to submit his representation within four weeks. It further ordered the competent authority to examine the claim in accordance with law and pass a reasoned speaking order within 12 weeks from the date of its receipt. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.
According to counsel for the petitioner, Vishva Bhushan, the dispute relates to the release of Dearness Allowance benefits due to the petitioner. He said the High Court had granted liberty to first seek administrative redressal.
However, if the State Government fails to address the grievance and release the admissible benefits, the petitioner would take the matter to its logical conclusion before the court.
The order comes against the backdrop of a growing number of government employees and pensioners approaching courts for the release of financial benefits earned during their service. Employees have been filing petitions seeking arrears, Dearness Allowance, revised pay, pensionary benefits, regularisation-related claims and other service dues that remain unpaid despite favourable judicial orders.
Legal circles point out that more than 300 cases involving similar issues are awaiting implementation by the State Government after employees secured relief from the Himachal Pradesh High Court. Several petitioners have been forced to approach the High Court again, alleging that despite court directions, the government has either delayed compliance or made only partial payments of the amounts due.
The issue has also reached the Supreme Court, where the Himachal Pradesh Government recently submitted that implementation of various High Court judgments would require nearly ₹650 crore, citing financial constraints.
The Supreme Court, however, is understood to have expressed its dissatisfaction with the State’s stand. The apex court observed that the High Court judgments were well-reasoned and represented the lawful entitlements of employees. It also remarked that while governments are able to allocate substantial funds for political programmes and other expenditures, they cannot deprive employees of benefits that have already been recognised by courts.
The developments have once again placed the State Government under scrutiny over its handling of employees’ service benefits.
Critics argue that while successive governments have announced politically popular measures such as restoration of the Old Pension Scheme (OPS), regularisation of certain categories of employees and periodic recruitment drives, many employees appointed under contractual or stop-gap arrangements continue to fight prolonged legal battles to secure financial benefits earned during their years of service.
With fresh petitions continuing to be filed for enforcement of earlier court orders, legal experts believe the State is increasingly fighting a losing legal battle.
They point out that repeated litigation not only delays justice for employees but also increases the financial burden on the exchequer through continued legal costs, delayed compliance and potential interest liabilities.
The latest High Court order in the Bhupender Singh case is expected to be closely watched, as its outcome may determine whether the petitioner’s claim is resolved administratively or returns to the High Court for adjudication on merits if the grievance remains unaddressed.
About the Author
