Questions raised over the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s handling of the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) dearness allowance case appear to overlook a significant part of the judicial record — an order passed on July 2 itself sets out why the matter came before the Bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra.The record shows that the matter was not simply taken up by the Acting Chief Justice by departing from the roster. Rather, it had reached the ACJ administratively after the Single Judge who had decided the original petitions was sitting in a different roster.The July 2 order specifically refers to an administrative order dated July 15, 2024, which mandates that Single Bench matters seeking to expand the scope of relief to address grievances of the public at large be placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate directions.“Because the Single Judge is sitting in a different roster, the case was referred on the administrative side to the Acting Chief Justice pursuant to the administrative order dated July 15, 2024, issued by the then Chief Justice, which mandates that Single Bench matters expanding the scope to address public-at-large grievances must be placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate directions,” the order says.Once the proceedings acquired the trappings of a public-interest matter, the relief sought was no longer confined to the individual petitioners, but extended to a larger class of employees and pensioners. Since the roster assigns PIL matters to the Bench headed by the Chief Justice, the case was accordingly placed before the Bench headed by Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra — the Acting Chief Justice at the time also. This administrative route through which the matter came before the ACJ-led Bench is recorded in the July 2 judicial order.The roster, the administrative route and the disputeThe reference to the July 15, 2024, administrative order by the Bench in its July 2 judicial order is significant as questions were only recently raised through a series of messages posted on social media platform X, questioning the manner in which the case came to be heard by the ACJ-led Division Bench and the roster under which it was listed, besides referring to the financial implications of the August 3 judgment for the Punjab Government and PSPCL.The dispute relates to a common judgment passed on April 8 directing the Punjab Government to release Dearness Allowance (DA) and Dearness Relief (DR) to its employees and pensioners at the same rates as paid to members of the All India Services serving in Punjab, in accordance with the Central Government pattern.The judgment had directed compliance by June 30 and required the Chief Secretary to file an affidavit regarding compliance, following which appeals were filed in the matter.The sequence of events: How the appeals reached the Division BenchThe subsequent proceedings make clear that the issue did not remain confined to the original writ petitions. A bunch of Letters Patent Appeals, including those filed by the State Government and PSPCL, came up before the Division Bench after the matter was referred to on the administrative side.The July 2 order also records that, following the Acting Chief Justice’s administrative order of July 1, the matter was listed before the Bench along with LPA (appeals) Nos. 1249, 1290 and 1437 of 2026 “for appropriate orders”.  Significantly, the order also records that counsel for all parties jointly requested that the matter be listed to examine the larger legal issues involved. The matter was accordingly fixed for July 6.What the August 3 judgment heldThe subsequent judgment of August 3 was delivered by the Division Bench, comprising Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor. The Bench dismissed the appeals filed by the State and PSPCL and affirmed the Single Judge’s directions, while modifying the timeline for implementation because the original June 30 deadline had already expired during the pendency of the appeals. The Bench directed release of the pending DA/DR instalments within a fortnight.The sequence is significant because it shows that the Acting Chief Justice’s involvement in the case was preceded by an administrative process expressly recorded in the judicial order. The July 2 order does not suggest that the case was withdrawn from a Bench by an unexplained judicial intervention; it records the administrative basis on which it came before the ACJ-led Bench.The chronology around Justice MishraThe issue has also unfolded against the backdrop of Justice Mishra’s position in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. He had been transferred from the Allahabad High Court to Chandigarh in July 2025 and joined as the first puisne judge, or senior-most judge after the Chief Justice.He was appointed Acting Chief Justice on June 1, this year, following the elevation of Justice Sheel Nagu to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court Collegium subsequently recommended Justice Mishra for appointment as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at its meeting on August 6.The DA litigation itself was, therefore, not a proceeding in which the Acting Chief Justice suddenly entered the matter and assumed jurisdiction. The judicial record reflects a sequence involving the original Single Judge order, an administrative reference under an existing roster-related mechanism, listing before the ACJ-led Division Bench, a joint request by counsel for consideration of the larger legal issues, and ultimately a reasoned appellate judgment.That chronology provides a materially different picture from one that begins with the August 3 judgment and treats the presence of the Acting Chief Justice on the Bench as an unexplained intervention.