The Punjab Government is facing a contempt petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court for allegedly “wilfully, deliberately, knowingly and intentionally” violating the court’s order directing it to release all pending installments of Dearness Allowance (DA) and Dearness Relief (DR) to employees and pensioners at the rates applicable to members of the All India Services serving in Punjab.The contempt petition has been filed by retired employees under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, seeking punishment of the State authorities for allegedly violating the Division Bench’s order dated August 3 passed in appeal “Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab versus Nirmal Singh Dhanoa and others”.The appeal had been filed by the State of Punjab against the Single Judge’s order dated April 8. The Division Bench dismissed appeals and affirmed the judgments passed by the Single Judge.The original direction, which thus continued to operate after dismissal of the State’s appeal, was explicit: “The State of Punjab and PSPCL are directed to grant and release all up-to-date pending installments of Dearness Allowance/Dearness Relief (DA/DR) to all its employees and pensioners, respectively, at the same rates as has been paid to the members of the All India Services (IAS/IPS/IFS) serving within the State of Punjab, in accordance with the Central Government pattern, within a fortnight.”According to the contempt petition, the petitioners, along with other employees and pensioner/employees unions, thereafter approached the respondents and supplied copies of the High Court order, requesting its implementation “in toto”. The fortnight granted by the court expired on August 17.However, instead of releasing the benefits, Under Secretary, Department of Finance, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Saroj, allegedly issued a letter dated August 17 to all the Secretaries stating: “No such orders may be implemented without prior concurrence of the FD or unless generalized directions are issued.”The petitioners contend that this communication amounted to a “willful, deliberate, intentionally and knowingly violation” of the Division Bench’s order dated August 3.