Why Courts Were Not Approached for the 18-Month DA Freeze: Extending the Constitutional and Legal Logic Explained Earlier
By Lokanath Mishra
In the previous article, we saw that DA is an important and continuous part of service conditions.
We also saw how courts, the Constitution, and 70 years of practice ensure that DA cannot be stopped arbitrarily, especially during pay commission transitions.
Now let us extend this line of reasoning to another question that keeps resurfacing:
“If DA is protected by service rules and constitutional principles, then why did nobody go to court when 18 months of DA and DR were frozen during COVID-19?”
This section gives a clear, reasoned, and legally sound explanation—one that ends unnecessary confusion and counters the repeated, emotional demands for court action.
- The COVID DA Freeze Was a Temporary Emergency Fiscal Measure—not a Change in Service Rules
In normal times, the government cannot stop DA arbitrarily.
This is exactly what the earlier article established through:
• Constitutional protections
• Article 309 service-rule continuity
• Supreme Court principles on fair wages
• Decades of CPC practices
But COVID-19 was not a normal time.
For the first time since Independence:
• The healthcare system required massive emergency funding
• GDP contracted sharply
• States demanded extraordinary financial support
• Government revenue collapsed
• Vaccines and medical infrastructure had to be built almost overnight
Under such conditions, governments worldwide exercised emergency fiscal measures.
India, instead of cutting salaries or curtailing jobs (as some countries did), opted for a temporary freeze on DA/DR increases, not a permanent stoppage.
The underlying DA rules were never cancelled, never modified, and never struck down.
Thus, the freeze was not a violation of service conditions—it was a fiscal deferment justified under extraordinary circumstances.
- Courts Do Not Interfere in Temporary Economic Decisions Taken During National Emergencies
This point directly extends the earlier article’s section on judicial principles.
Indian courts have repeatedly held:
“Policy decisions taken by the executive during economic crises are not to be interfered with unless they violate a specific law.”
And in COVID-19, the government’s action:
• applied uniformly
• did not alter any rule under Article 309
• did not reduce basic pay or pension
• did not discriminate between categories
• had a clear public-interest justification
Because of this, any writ petition would have been dismissed at the admission stage.
Even employee unions understood that the legal basis for challenging a temporary fiscal measure was extremely weak.
- DA Freeze Did Not Violate Constitutional Rights—Unlike Permanent Reductions or Discriminatory Actions
Earlier, we discussed the Supreme Court’s Nakara judgment and Articles 14, 16, and 21.
These protections apply when:
• pension is cut
• pay is reduced
• discrimination occurs
• rules are changed arbitrarily
In the COVID freeze:
• No pension was reduced
• No employee’s pay was touched
• No group was treated differently
• No rule was amended
• DA resumed exactly where it left off
Thus, none of the constitutional triggers for litigation existed.
The freeze was temporary, non-discriminatory, and taken under unavoidable national circumstances.
- Why Unions Did Not File a Case: Because They Knew It Would Legally Fail
Unions examined:
• Constitutional provisions
• Service rules under Article 309
• Past judgments
• Emergency fiscal powers of the government
• International practices during the pandemic
The result was clear:
There was no strong legal ground to challenge the temporary freeze.
Filing a weak case would have produced three negative outcomes:
1. The case would be dismissed at the preliminary stage.
2. Courts might impose financial costs on petitioners for wasting judicial time.
3. A judicial dismissal would actually strengthen the government’s position permanently.
Responsible unions avoided this trap.
- The Most Important Point: DA Was Restored in Full and Continues Normally
This is the strongest evidence that the government never intended to suppress employees’ rights.
• DA resumed from July 2021
• All further revisions were made exactly on time
• DA is again above 50% (7th CPC)
• It will continue until 8th CPC implementation, as explained earlier
If the government had stopped DA indefinitely, it would have invited legitimate legal challenge.
But it did not.
A temporary freeze in a once-in-a-century health emergency does not equate to denial of rights.
- Why Asking “Why Not Go to Court?” Today Makes No Sense
Some people on social media keep repeating the question without understanding:
• constitutional law
• service rules
• judicial limits
• economic emergency powers
Their arguments are emotional, not legal.
They imagine litigation as a magic wand that forces the government to release funds even when national disasters occur.
But courts decide matters on law and precedent—not feelings.
Demanding court action now, three years after DA has been fully restored, shows a lack of understanding of:
• how the judiciary works
• what constitutes a constitutional violation
• what emergency fiscal policy means
Such arguments only mislead others and create unnecessary bitterness.
Final Synthesis — Both Articles Show the Same Legal Reality
The previous article established that:
• DA is a valid part of service conditions
• DA cannot be stopped arbitrarily
• DA always continues during pay commission transitions
• The Constitution supports fairness and continuity
This article extends the same logic to show:
• Emergency, temporary fiscal decisions are legally permissible
• Courts cannot interfere in crisis-driven economic policy
• DA freeze during COVID did not violate any constitutional protection
• That is why no case was filed—and why any such case would have failed
In both situations, the consistent legal principle is:
DA must continue under normal rule-based governance, but temporary freezes during extraordinary calamities do not violate constitutional or service rights.
This balanced understanding—free from confusion and misinformation—is what employees and pensioners need today.