Chandigarh, May 26 -- The Punjab and Haryana high court on Monday issued notice to employees and pensioners who had secured an order directing the Punjab government to clear pending dearness allowance (DA) dues by June 30, after the state challenged the ruling. However, the court did not stay the single-judge bench order, which means the government will have to comply with the deadline, unless challenged before the Supreme Court, and fixed July 1 for the next hearing. On April 8, the bench of justice Harpreet Singh Brar had directed the Punjab government to grant and release all up-to-date pending instalments of DA to all its employees and pensioners at the rates paid to the members of the All India Services (IAS/IPS/IFS) officers serving in the state on the central government pattern by June 30. The order, if implemented, would result in immediate financial liability of Rs.14,000 crore on the state. The bench had underlined that once the government accepted the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission, the benefits arising from them cannot be denied to the petitioners. It had also asserted that the state cannot deny the payment on the ground of its financial position and priorities During the hearing on Monday, the government came up with a plan on disbursal of DA and arrears in a sealed cover. But it did not find favour with the court. The bench of justice JS Puri and justice Amarjot Bhatti only issued notice to the petitioner employees without passing a stay order. The government's argument is that a division bench in 2025 had already approved a plan, allowing it to clear DA dues by 2028. The single-judge bench could not have overruled the division bench directions, the state has argued. A division bench in 2025 had approved a liquidation plan proposed by cabinet sub-committee of Punjab in which total liability was pegged at Rs.14,191, to be released in a phased manner by 2028. "The judgment travels beyond the permissible limits of judicial review by entering into the domain of fiscal policy and financial administration of the state. The directions issued, if implemented, would impose an immediate and substantial financial burden, disrupt structured fiscal planning and have wide-ranging administrative consequences," the petition had said. There is one more petition attached in the case, filed by the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) against the same order. The PSPCL argument is that it was not even a party before the single bench and that the April 8 order was passed without hearing it. Another argument from PSPCL is that employees of the corporation can't claim parity with state government employees....