Nearly 16 years after the Punjab Power Sector Reforms Transfer Scheme was notified following the unbundling of the erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board, the Punjab and Haryana High Court was told that the Administrative Secretary of Punjab’s Power Department would personally appear before the court if the State failed to finally implement the scheme.
Once implemented, the scheme is expected to bring closure to the long-pending issue of transfer and permanent absorption of employees between Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) and Punjab Transmission Corporation Limited (Transco), potentially impacting seniority, promotions and service benefits.
As the matter came up for resumed hearing before Justice Harpreet Singh Brar’s Bench, senior counsel Puneet Bali submitted on PSPCL’ behalf that the entire exercise for implementation of the scheme had been completed. Punjab Additional Advocate-General Anu Chathrath’s opinion was also obtained on April 30 and only formal orders were required to be issued. He further sought two weeks’ time pto finalise the matter.
“In the event of non-compliance, the concerned Administrative Secretary of the Department of Power shall remain present before this Court to explain the reasons for failure to comply with the repeated directions issued by this Court,” Bali added.
Taking note of the submissions, Justice Brar fixed the matter for further hearing on May 19. The petitioners were represented in the matter by senior advocate Amit Jhanji and counsel Manu K. Bhandari, HC Arora among others. The Bench was assisted by advocate Gurnoor Singh Sethi on PSPCL’s behalf.
The matter has its genesis in a bunch of petitions filed against PSPCL and other respondents. The Bench, during the course of hearing, was told that Punjab State Electricity Board was bifurcated into PSPCL and Transco.
The Punjab government subsequently notified the Punjab Power Sector Reforms Transfer Scheme on April 16, 2010, for transfer of functions, assets, properties, rights, liabilities and personnel of the erstwhile PSEB pursuant to a tripartite agreement. Its perusal indicated that the State had the power to finalise transfer of personnel from PSPCL to Transco and their permanent absorption in Transco.
Justice Brar’s Bench was also told that the government was obligated to constitute a committee for transfer and absorption of personnel from PSPCL to Transco.
“However, the State significantly faltered in meaningfully implementing the scheme following its failure to constitute a committee to oversee all the transfer and absorption related issues… Since the State has failed to form the Committee, the transfers and absorptions are being done in an arbitrary manner, motivated by nepotism and favouritism,” it was contended on the petitioners’ behalf.
Taking up the matter on a previous date of hearing, the Bench had observed that PSEB was unbundled 12 years ago, but transfer and absorption of personnel was still unsettled.
“The whimsical manner adopted by PSPCL in regard to transfer and absorption of personnel is not only antithetical to the object and intent of the policy, but also appears to be tainted by mala fide. It remains unexplained as to why not even a committee, in terms of Clause 12 of the scheme, has been constituted by the State,” the Bench had observed.
