The Supreme Court has affirmed that Dearness Allowance is not a discretionary benefit but a legally enforceable right essential to preserving the constitutional right to live with dignity. In a landmark ruling, the Court held that State Governments cannot evade payment of DA arrears on grounds of financial constraint when such payments are mandated by their own statutory rules incorporating the All-India Consumer Price Index (AICPI). This judgment redefines the relationship between fiscal policy, constitutional obligations, and the economic security of public employees.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from the State of West Bengal’s failure to pay Dearness Allowance (DA) to its government employees at rates linked to the All-India Consumer Price Index (AICPI) for the period 2008 - 2019. Despite adopting the Central Government’s definition of ‘existing emoluments’ - which explicitly incorporated AICPI (1982=100) - the State unilaterally reduced DA rates and delayed payments through executive memoranda, deviating from the statutory framework it had itself established.
Procedural History
The case progressed through multiple forums:
- 2016: Employees filed Original Application No. 1154 of 2016 before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal, seeking DA arrears and parity with Central Government rates.
- 2017: Tribunal dismissed the application, holding DA was a discretionary benefit.
- 2018: Calcutta High Court, in its first round of litigation, reversed the Tribunal, holding DA was a legally enforceable right under the West Bengal Services (Revision of Pay and Allowance) Rules, 2009 (RoPA Rules).
- 2019: On remand, the Tribunal directed the State to compute DA using AICPI and pay arrears, but rejected parity with Central Government rates.
- 2022: Calcutta High Court, in its second round, upheld the Tribunal’s order and held DA was a facet of Article 21.
- 2026: Supreme Court heard appeals and contempt petitions arising from the High Court’s judgment.
Relief Sought
The respondents sought: (1) payment of DA arrears from 2008 - 2019 calculated using AICPI (1982=100); (2) payment of DA twice annually as per Central Government practice; and (3) parity in DA rates with Central Government employees. They also sought enforcement of the 5th Pay Commission’s recommendations.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Dearness Allowance, once incorporated into statutory rules under Article 309, becomes a legally enforceable right that must be calculated using the All-India Consumer Price Index (AICPI), and whether financial paucity can justify non-payment of such a right.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant-State
The State contended that DA is a fiscal policy matter within its exclusive domain under Entry 41 of List II of the Seventh Schedule. It argued that: (1) the RoPA Rules did not mandate DA to be paid twice a year; (2) the AICPI was merely a reference point, not a binding formula; (3) subsequent memoranda issued under Article 162 allowed flexibility in DA rates; (4) payment of arrears would impose an unaffordable liability of over ₹41,000 crores; and (5) the High Court’s characterization of DA as a fundamental right under Article 21 was legally unsustainable and would undermine fiscal autonomy.
For the Respondents
The employees argued that: (1) the definition of ‘existing emoluments’ in RoPA Rules was a legislative incorporation of the Central Government’s AICPI-based formula, making it binding; (2) executive memoranda cannot override statutory rules; (3) the State’s deviation from AICPI was manifestly arbitrary under Article 14; (4) legitimate expectation arose from consistent past practice; and (5) paucity of funds cannot negate a statutory right, especially when DA is integral to livelihood and dignity under Article 21.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a comprehensive doctrinal analysis, beginning with the constitutional foundations of DA. It held that DA is not a welfare concession but a mechanism to preserve the right to live with human dignity under Article 21, as affirmed in Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and Common Cause v. Union of India. The Court emphasized that inflation erodes purchasing power, and DA serves as a constitutional safeguard against economic deprivation.
The Court then examined the statutory framework under Article 309. It held that the RoPA Rules, framed under this provision, had statutory force and could not be altered by executive memoranda. Crucially, the definition of ‘existing emoluments’ in Rule 3(1)(c) was not a mere reference but a legislation by incorporation of the Central Government’s AICPI-based formula. As such, the State was bound to use AICPI (1982=100) as the sole index for DA computation.
"The incorporation of the AICPI cannot be termed as a one-time measure and once DA was defined using it, to take a different path would be impermissible."
The Court rejected the State’s argument that subsequent memoranda filled gaps in the rules. It held that no such gap existed - the AICPI was the core of the statutory definition. Deviation without independent economic justification constituted manifest arbitrariness under Article 14, as established in Shayara Bano v. Union of India and Assn. for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India.
The Court also dismissed the claim that DA must be paid twice a year, noting that RoPA Rules contained no such mandate. Judicial imposition of such a requirement would infringe upon the State’s fiscal autonomy under federal structure.
On the issue of financial inability, the Court held that paucity of funds cannot defeat a statutory right. Citing Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tube Wells Corporation v. G.S. Uppal and State of A.P. v. Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari, it affirmed that DA is not a bounty but earned compensation. The State, as a model employer, must honor its obligations even during fiscal stress.
The Court declined to rule on whether DA is a fundamental right under Article 21, noting that both parties agreed not to press the issue. It also rejected the State’s delay and laches argument, holding that non-payment of DA constituted a continuing wrong, and the claim was filed while the cause of action subsisted.
The Verdict
The Supreme Court held that the respondents won. The Court affirmed that Dearness Allowance is a legally enforceable right under the RoPA Rules, must be calculated using the AICPI (1982=100), and cannot be denied on grounds of financial constraint. The State must pay arrears for 2008 - 2019 and comply with a structured payment schedule determined by a newly constituted oversight committee.
What This Means For Similar Cases
DA Is Not Discretionary - It Is Statutory
- Practitioners must now treat DA claims as enforceable statutory rights, not discretionary benefits.
- Any State that incorporates AICPI into its pay rules cannot later deviate via executive orders.
- Employees can invoke Article 14 to challenge arbitrary reductions in DA rates.
AICPI Is the Only Legally Recognized Index
- States must use AICPI (1982=100) for DA calculations unless they enact new rules with an alternative, independently justified index.
- Relying on state-specific indices without empirical data or legislative backing will be struck down as arbitrary.
- Legal challenges against DA payments based on non-AICPI formulas are now viable.
Financial Constraints Are Not a Defense
-
Government employers cannot plead budgetary constraints to withhold DA, pensions, or other statutory dues.
-
Courts will enforce statutory rights even if payment causes fiscal strain.
-
States must prioritize employee dues in budgetary planning; failure to do so may attract contempt proceedings.
-
Practitioners should file writ petitions under Article 226 to enforce DA arrears where statutory rules exist.
-
In cases involving delayed DA payments, the doctrine of continuing wrong applies - limitation does not bar claims as long as non-payment continues.
-
The Supreme Court’s directive to form a monitoring committee sets a precedent for institutional oversight in complex public service disputes.
