1. Government employees sought Dearness Allowance following Fifth Pay Commission recommendations, challenging the state's non-payment of arrears and reliance on financial incapacity to deny a claimed statutory right. (Para 8 , 10 , 15 , 16 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 135
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Karol, Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.
State of West Bengal & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Confederation of State Government Employees, West Bengal & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 792-794 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 22628-22630 of 2022) With Contempt Petition No(s). of 2026 arising out of Diary No.(s) 35252 of 2025, Contempt Petition No(s). of 2026 arising out of @Diary No.(s) 39626 of 2025And Contempt Petition No(s). of 2026 arising out of @DIARY NO.(s) 41566 of 2025
Decided On : 05-02-2026
Important Points
The court affirmed that the right to receive Dearness Allowance is legally enforceable under Article 21, linking it to human dignity, and rejected the State's financial incapacity as a valid defense against payment.
Subject
Public Employment - Wages and Allowances
Act Referred
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT: S.19
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.14, Art.16, Art.21, Art.245, Art.246, Art.247, Art.248, Art.249, Art.250, Art.251, Art.252, Art.253, Art.254, Art.309, Art.73
FINANCE ACT: S.24
FUNDAMENTAL RULES: R.44
GENERAL CLAUSES ACT: S.8
West Bengal Servies Revision of pay and Allowance Rules: R.12, R.12(1)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.14, Art.16, Art.21, Art.245, Art.246, Art.247, Art.248, Art.249, Art.250, Art.251, Art.252, Art.253, Art.254, Art.309, Art.73
FINANCE ACT: S.24
FUNDAMENTAL RULES: R.44
GENERAL CLAUSES ACT: S.8
West Bengal Servies Revision of pay and Allowance Rules: R.12, R.12(1)
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India, Article 21; Directive Principles of State Policy, Articles 38, 39, 43 - Dearness Allowance (DA) as a right - The right to receive DA has been declared a legally enforceable right by High Court, affirming its link to human dignity under Article 21, as it is a crucial aspect of maintaining a minimum standard of living - The appellant State's assertion of financial incapacity to pay DA was not accepted as a valid defense, establishing that statutory obligations by the State are non-discretionary, regardless of fiscal distress (Paras 3, 4, 12, 59)
(B) Welfare State - The State has a positive duty to ensure social and economic well-being of its citizens, necessitating the payment of DA to mitigate inflationary pressures on salaries - Denial of DA constitutes an infringement of the right to live with dignity, as guaranteed under the Constitution (Paras 1, 2, 5, 6)
(C) Remand and compliance - The tribunal reiterated the need for the State to compute DA based on the All-India Consumer Price Index (AICPI), emphasizing the necessity of following defined statutory guidelines without arbitrary deviations - The proper calculation and timely disbursement of DA were mandated, with orders for gradual payment of arrears from 2008 to 2019 (Paras 39, 42, 59)
(D) Judicial Review - Courts maintain the ability to enforce statutory rights regardless of executive claims about financial limitations, safeguarding employees' entitlements against arbitrary State action (Para 50) (E) Final Order - Appeals by the State partially allowed; the Court instructed monitoring of DA payment schedules and compliance mandates, establishing a committee to oversee the implementation process (Paras 59.6, 59.7) (F) Parties Involved: State of West Bengal (Appellant), Confederation of State Government Employees, West Bengal (Respondent).
(B) Welfare State - The State has a positive duty to ensure social and economic well-being of its citizens, necessitating the payment of DA to mitigate inflationary pressures on salaries - Denial of DA constitutes an infringement of the right to live with dignity, as guaranteed under the Constitution (Paras 1, 2, 5, 6)
(C) Remand and compliance - The tribunal reiterated the need for the State to compute DA based on the All-India Consumer Price Index (AICPI), emphasizing the necessity of following defined statutory guidelines without arbitrary deviations - The proper calculation and timely disbursement of DA were mandated, with orders for gradual payment of arrears from 2008 to 2019 (Paras 39, 42, 59)
(D) Judicial Review - Courts maintain the ability to enforce statutory rights regardless of executive claims about financial limitations, safeguarding employees' entitlements against arbitrary State action (Para 50) (E) Final Order - Appeals by the State partially allowed; the Court instructed monitoring of DA payment schedules and compliance mandates, establishing a committee to oversee the implementation process (Paras 59.6, 59.7) (F) Parties Involved: State of West Bengal (Appellant), Confederation of State Government Employees, West Bengal (Respondent).
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- constitutional law
- practice and procedure
Advocates appeared:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar, AOR Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Uddyam Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Guddu Singh, Adv. Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Sr. Adv. Mr. Swapnil Pattanayak, Adv. Mr. Agnibha Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Davesh Vashishtha, Adv. Ms. Kratika Kushwaha, Adv. Mr. Sidesh Kotwal, Adv. Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR Mr. Shekhar Kumar, AOR
For Respondent(s): Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rauf Rahim, Sr. Adv. Mr. Firdous Samim, Adv. Mr. Ali Asghar Rahim, Adv. Ms. Gopa Biswas, Adv. Mr. Mohsin Rahim, Adv. Ms. Tania Tamanna, Adv. Mr. Shekhar Kumar, AOR Mr. P S Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Uddyam Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Guddu Singh, Adv. Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Sr. Adv. Mr. Swapnil Pattanayak, Adv. Mr. Agnibha Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Davesh Vashishtha, Adv. Ms. Kratika Kushwaha, Adv. Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Sidesh Kotwal, Adv. Ms. Karuna Nundy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prabir Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar, AOR Mr. Shiv Mehrotra, Adv. Ms. Rishika Rishabh, Adv. Ms. Shivangshi Mitra, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Banga, Adv. Ms. Astha Singh, Adv. Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Bikram Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Chandrashekhar A. Chakalabbi, Adv. Mr. Sudipta Dasgupta, Adv. Mrs. Somsubhra Ganguly, Adv. Ms. Debapriya Mitra, Adv. Ms. Adrita Dey, Adv. Ms. Sinjhoni Chakraborty, Adv. M/s Dharmaprabhas Law Associates, AOR Ms. Karuna Nundy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prabir Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar, AOR Ms. Sakshi Banga, Adv. Mr. Shiv Mehrotra, Adv. Ms. Astha Singh, Adv.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar, AOR Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Uddyam Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Guddu Singh, Adv. Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Sr. Adv. Mr. Swapnil Pattanayak, Adv. Mr. Agnibha Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Davesh Vashishtha, Adv. Ms. Kratika Kushwaha, Adv. Mr. Sidesh Kotwal, Adv. Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR Mr. Shekhar Kumar, AOR
For Respondent(s): Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rauf Rahim, Sr. Adv. Mr. Firdous Samim, Adv. Mr. Ali Asghar Rahim, Adv. Ms. Gopa Biswas, Adv. Mr. Mohsin Rahim, Adv. Ms. Tania Tamanna, Adv. Mr. Shekhar Kumar, AOR Mr. P S Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Uddyam Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Guddu Singh, Adv. Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Sr. Adv. Mr. Swapnil Pattanayak, Adv. Mr. Agnibha Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Davesh Vashishtha, Adv. Ms. Kratika Kushwaha, Adv. Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Sidesh Kotwal, Adv. Ms. Karuna Nundy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prabir Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar, AOR Mr. Shiv Mehrotra, Adv. Ms. Rishika Rishabh, Adv. Ms. Shivangshi Mitra, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Banga, Adv. Ms. Astha Singh, Adv. Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Bikram Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Chandrashekhar A. Chakalabbi, Adv. Mr. Sudipta Dasgupta, Adv. Mrs. Somsubhra Ganguly, Adv. Ms. Debapriya Mitra, Adv. Ms. Adrita Dey, Adv. Ms. Sinjhoni Chakraborty, Adv. M/s Dharmaprabhas Law Associates, AOR Ms. Karuna Nundy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prabir Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar, AOR Ms. Sakshi Banga, Adv. Mr. Shiv Mehrotra, Adv. Ms. Astha Singh, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. The state argued financial inability, discretion, and lack of parity with central employees, while respondents claimed a statutory, enforceable right to Dearness Allowance based on the Revised Pay rules. (Para 16 , 17 , 20 )
3. The state's incorporation of index-based criteria in statutory rules created a binding entitlement; subsequent executive memoranda deviating from this index without justification under existing statutory rules were manifestly arbitrary. (Para 32 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 51 )
4. When rules under Article 309 incorporate a specific calculation index by reference, executive instructions changing that index without formal rule amendment are ultra vires and manifestly arbitrary. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 37 )
5. The appeal is partly allowed; the state must pay Dearness Allowance arrears following the Consumer Price Index, with a committee established to determine payment schedules and verify compliance. (Para 59 )
6. Can a state government defend the non-payment of Dearness Allowance on grounds of financial paucity?
No. Once a legal right to Dearness Allowance is established by statute, financial inability is not a valid defence to deny payment. The state acts as a model employer and must honour statutory obligations to its employees regardless of fiscal strain. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 )
7. What is the legal effect of an executive memorandum that contradicts statutory rules framed under Article 309?
Executive memoranda cannot override standing statutory rules framed under Article 309. If such memoranda deviate from substantive rules without formal legislative amendment or justifiable gaps, they are ultra vires and hit by manifest arbitrariness. (Para 26 , 27 , 37 , 39 )
8. Does the principle of 'legislation by incorporation' restrict the state's power to unilaterally alter calculation methods?
Yes. When the state incorporates a mechanism like the All India Consumer Price Index into its rules, it creates a statutory link. The state cannot thereafter deviate from this index via subordinate executive instructions without first amending the parent rules. (Para 28 , 30 , 31 )
9. Does the dismissal of a review petition give rise to the doctrine of finality regarding the findings of the original judgment?
Yes. Once a high court judgment is tested in review and the review is dismissed, the findings attain conclusive finality. These findings operate as res judicata, and parties are thereafter bound by the determined legal rights. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 )
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KAROL J.
This judgment is divided into the following parts:
INDEX
| EXORDIUM |
| THE CONTROVERSY IN SUMMARIUM |
| A GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND DEFINITIONS |
| RoPA Rules |
| First Memorandum |
| PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL |
| BEFORE THE HIGH COURT-ROUND ONE |
| ON REMAND BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL |
| BEFORE THE HIGH COURT- ROUND TWO |
| RIVAL CONTENTIONS |
| A. Submissions on behalf of the Appellant-State |
| B. Submissions of the Respondents |
| QUESTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED |
| ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION |
| Dearness Allowance |
| Question 1: ARTICLE 309 |
| Questions 2, 3 and 4 |
| Question 5: ARBITRARINESS OF APPELLANT-STATE’S ACTION AND LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION OF ITS EMPLOYEES |
| Question 6 and 7: CONFLICT, IF ANY, BETWEEN LIST I AND II OF THE VIIth SCHEDULE AND FINANCIAL AUTONOMY OF THE STATE |
| Question 8: EFFECT OF FINDINGS IN FIRST ROUND OF LITIGATION |
| Question 9: WHETHER THE RESPONDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO DA TWICE A YEAR? |
| Question 10: DOES PAUCITY OF FUNDS DEFEAT A LEGAL RIGHT? |
| Question 11: FISCAL POLICY AND JUDICIAL REVIEW |
| Question 12: DEARNESS ALLOWANCE - A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT? |
| Question 13: DELAY AND LATCHES |
| DIRECTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS |
Leave Granted in SLP(C)Nos.22628-22630 of 2022.
This appeal is at the instance of the State of West Bengal and arise out of two prior rounds of litigation wherein the State suffered judgments against itself.
EXORDIUM
1. The idea of a welfare state casts a positive duty upon the State to ensure the social and economic well-being of its citizens. The role of the State is as such not limited to maintaining law and order or facilitating markets, but extends to creating or easing the way for conditions in which individuals can live with security, dignity, and a reasonable standard of living. One of the most persistent threats to this objective that has become a permanent ‘bad penny’, is inflation, which steadily erodes purchasing power, thereby placing a disproportionate burden on salaried and lower-income groups. In this context, Dearness Allowance emerges as a practical instrument of protection in the hands of the welfare state, which protects its employees from the adverse effects of rising prices.
2. Dearness Allowance is designed to neutralise the impact of inflation. When the cost of essential goods increases, salaries that do not account for the same and remain in a bygone era, often fail to meet the basic needs, leading to a decline in living standards. By way of periodic adjustment to salaries in response to changes in the cost of living, the State attempts to ensure that employment continues to provide economic security. This reflects a core concern of the welfare state that its employees should not be pushed into hardship due to economic forces beyond their control. Put differently, Dearness Allowance is not an additional benefit but a means to maintain a minimum standard of living.
3. The importance of preserving a reasonable standard of living is closely tied to the constitutional idea of dignity. Human dignity does not mean mere physical survival. Access to food, clothing, healthcare, shelter and the ability to participate meaningfully in social life are crucial aspects. Dignity is compromised when individuals are unable to meet these basic needs. This link is recognized in our Constitution under Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Judicial interpretation has consistently held that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity, encompassing livelihood, adequate nutrition, shelter, and basic amenities. This right, under Article 21, would lose its substantive meaning without a minimum standard of living.
4. PN Bhagwati J. (as his Lordship then was) felicitously captured this constitutional diktat in the following words in Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608:
“8. But the question which arises is whether the right to life is limi
