Hakam Singh Vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

1

CWP-2423 6 -2022 and connected matters

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 260(3 cases) Date of decision: 11.11.202 5 (i) CWP-24236-2022(O&M) Jaspreet Si n gh and others ...Petitione r s VERSUS Punjab State Transmission Corporation Li m ited and another ...Respond e nts (ii) CWP-898-2023

¶4

Hakam Sin g h ...Petitione r VERSUS Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and o t hers ...Respond e nts (iii) CWP-25601-2024(O&M) Chander M o han and another ...Petitione r s VERSUS State of Pu n jab and others ...Respond e nts CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CWP24236-2022. Mr. B.S. Sidhu, Advocate for t he petitioner in CWP-8982023. Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advoca t e for the petitioner(s) in CWP25601-2024. Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punja b .

¶5

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.14 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶6

2

¶7

CWP-2423 6 -2022 and connected matters

¶8

Mr. Satyam Tandon, Advocat e for respondent No.2 in CWP25601-2024.

¶9

Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2 in CWP24236-2022.

¶10

Mr. Sumit Nain, Advocate for respondent(s)-PSPCL in CWP24236-2022 and 898-2023.

¶11

Harpreet Singh Brar, J.(Oral)

¶12

This common order shall disp o se of all the above-mentioned w rit petitions a s they arise from a similar fact u al matrix and pertain to com m on questions o f law. However, for the sake o f brevity, the facts are taken f r om CWP-2423 6 -2023.

¶13

The present petition is prefe r red under Articles 226/227 of the Constitutio n of India seeking issuance of w rit in the nature of certiorari for quashing of memo dated 06.07.2022 (A n nexure P-5) issued by respon d ent No.1 vide w hich the names have been cal l ed for directly recruited Divisi o nal Accountan t s for promotion to the post of A ccounts Officer, while ignoring the share quot a of PSPCL Cadre Assistant A ccounts Officers (AAOs) who are senior to their counterparts from Transco. F urther, a prayer has been made for issuance o f a writ in the nature of mand a mus directing respondent No. 1 to maintain p a rity in promotion to the posts o f Accounts Officers in Transco f r om AAOs fro m PSPCL and Transco cadre, res p ectively. 3. Briefly, the facts are that o n 16.04.2010, the Punjab State Electricity B oard (PSEB) was bifurcated i n to Punjab State Power Corpora t ion Limited ( P SPCL) and Power State T r ansmission Corporation Lim i ted (Transco). Both corporations are owned b y the State of Punjab and there fo re,

¶14

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.14 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

3

¶16

CWP-2423 6 -2022 and connected matters

¶17

it was deci d ed that the employees shall ha v e a common seniority and cadr e . It was also d e cided that the employees can be transferred from one entit y to another. T h e petitioners are working as A A Os and had qualified Part I and II of SAS ex a mination and therefore, are be i ng promoted as SAS Account a nts. However, t h e said SAS Accountants are e l igible for further promotion to the post of Ac c ounts Officer on completion o f 05 years of service. In spit e of being eligi b le, the petitioners are not being c onsidered for the said promoti o n. 4. Learned counsel for the p e titioners contends that the total sanctioned cadre strength for post of Acco u nts Officer is 78. Additionally , 07 posts were s anctioned in the share of BBM B and 13 for Transco as share q u ota posts of PS P CL in Transco. Learned counsel submits that when Transco c a me into existe n ce, it independently issued a d vertisement for recruitment to the post of Di v isional Accountant. The said D ivisional Accountants recruite d by Transco in t he year 2012 were promoted a s AAO/SAS Accountant in the y ear 2019 since the promotion was subject t o them clearing the SAS Par t II examinatio n . Vide impugned memo d a ted 06.07.2022 (Annexure P -5), respondent - Transco called for service reco r ds of 08 SAS Accountants for the purpose o f promotion to the post of A c counts Officer, however, it o nly included th e names of employees directly r e cruited by Transco. The petitio n ers are much s e nior to those whose records ha v e been called for as they have b een working as AAOs in the erstwhile PSEB s ince the year 2009 (for petitio n ers No.1 to 5) and 2012 (for petitioner No.6). Further, 13 posts have also b een reserved fo r PSPCL cadre employees work i ng in Transco. In spite of this, t h eir

¶18

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.14 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

4

¶20

CWP-2423 6 -2022 and connected matters

¶21

claim has been unjustly and arbitrarily ignored in gross violation of the tripartite a g reement as well as the Punja b Power Sector Reforms Transfer Scheme, 2 0 10 (hereinafter 8Transfer Sc h eme, 20109). At this stage, the petitioners would be satisfied if their g rievances are considered by the Committee formed under the Transfer Sche m e, 2010.

¶22

Per contra , learned counsel f o r respondent-Transco submits t hat Transco h a s framed service regulation s for its own employees w h ose seniorities are maintained independently. The promotions of Transco c a dre employees h ave been done by the Depart m ental Promotion Committee. T h ere is no offici a l record to suggest that Transc o agreed to a share quota of 13 p o sts of Accoun t s Officers of PSPCL in Tr a nsco. Rather, vide memo d a ted 21.09.2022 (Annexure R-1/1), PSPCL wa s informed that there are no s h are quota post s available in Transco. Furthe r still, the petitioners are clai m ing parity wit h respect to seniority and pr o motion with the regular Tra n sco employees, however, they have not arraye d any person alleged to be juni o r to them who h as been promoted. He further s u bmits that DPC was conducte d on 06.10.2022 and 06 employees were promo t ed to the post of Accounts Officer, who also h a ve not been impleaded in the p r esent case. Hence, the writ peti t ion deserves to be dismissed for non-joinder o f necessary and proper parties. Be that as it m a y, learned counsel produced no t ification dated 23.10.2025 in C o urt and submit t ed that the committee for abso r ption of employees in terms o f the Transfer S c heme, 2010 has been constitute d and the case of the petitioners can be effectiv e ly considered and decided by it.

¶23

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.14 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

5

¶25

CWP-2423 6 -2022 and connected matters

¶26

Learned counsel for responde n t-PSPCL submits that it is a set t led principle t h at deputation occurs between t wo distinct entities as PSPCL and Transco ar e distinct legal entities. Further, neither the tripartite agreement nor the Transf e r Scheme, 2010 guarantees a n y right of promotion to PS P CL employees in Transco. While Clause 6(12) of the Transfer Scheme, 2010 provide for absorption of personnel from P SPCL to Transco, the Committee entrusted w ith this responsibility was not c o nstituted. However, since the s a me is done no w , the case of the petitioners can b e considered by it. 7. I have heard learned counsel f o r the parties and perused the re c ord of the case.

¶27

On 16.09.2025, the following order was passed by this Cou r t in CWP-1201 8 -2024 wherein a similar issu e was raised. The relevant pa r t is reproduced below:

¶28

<4. In view of the issue r aised by learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is const r ained to observe that in spite o f the fact that the PSEB was unbundled 12 years ago, the matte r of transfer and absorption of per s onnel still remains unsettled. S i nce a new entity-Transco was created with a distinct set of responsibilities and functions, in formulating the Scheme, ef fo rts were made to ensure an eas y and efficient transition to en s ure stability and constitute a se p arate cadre for Transco for its smooth functioning. However, the whimsical manner adopte d by PSPCL in regard to transfer a nd absorption of personnel is not only antithetical to the objec t and intent of the policy but a lso appears to be tainted by mal a fide. It remains unexplained a s to why not even a Committee, in terms of Clause 12 of the Sch e me,

¶29

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.14 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

6

¶31

CWP-2423 6 -2022 and connected matters

¶32

has been constituted by th e State. Further still, the S tate Government has also failed to provide a target date for the completion of this exercise, w hich yet again defeats the e n tire purpose of framing the sai d statutory scheme. Clearly, the conduct of the State is sy mp tomatic of policy paralysis a nd bureaucratic inertia, which ca n not go unnoticed by this Court.

¶33

5. As such, respondent N o .1- the State of Punjab throug h its Principal Secretary to Gove r nment of Punjab, Departmen t of Power, is directed to file an affidavit deliberating upon the following:

¶34

(i) Why has Clause 12 o f the Scheme not been followe d in letter and spirit?

¶35

(ii) Why has no time li m it been fixed for completion o f the transfer and absorption of the personnel or constitutions of a Committee in terms o f Clause 12 of the Scheme? (iii) Provide a detailed roadmap for implementation o f the Scheme within reasona b le dispatch.

¶36

6. Respondent No.2-Ch a irman-cum-Managing Dire c tor, PSPCL and respondent No.3- C hairman cum-Managing Dire c tor, Transco are also directed to s ubmit the complete particular s of regarding the cadre strength, n umber of vacancies, nomencla t ure of all posts in PSPCL and T r ansco, respectively, along with the details of repatriation of candidates from Transco.=

¶37

It transpires that subsequent t o the abovementioned order, the Departmen t of Power, Government of P u njab has constituted a Committee under Cla u se 6(12) of the Transfer Sch e me, 2010 vide notification d a ted 23.10.2025 to finalise transfer and perma n ent absorption of personnel f r om

¶38

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.14 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶39

7

¶40

CWP-2423 6 -2022 and connected matters

¶41

PSPCL an d Transco. As such, this Court d e ems it appropriate to dispose o f all the above m entioned writ petitions in the f o llowing terms:

¶42

i. The Committee constitute d vide notification dated 23.10.2025 shall consider the clai m s of the petitioners and p ass appropriate speaking orde r s after affording the petitioner s an opportunity to be heard, in t erms of the tripartite agreement.

¶43

ii. The needful be done withi n 03 months of receipt of a certi f ied copy of this order.

¶44

iii. If any grievance survives post consideration by the Committee, the petitioner s will be at liberty to avail the alternative legal remedies a v ailable to them.

¶45

Pending miscellaneous appl i cation(s), if any, also stan d s disposed o f .

¶46

Photocopy of this order be p laced on the file of connect e d cases.

¶47

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE

¶48

November 11, 2025 P.C

¶49

Whether speaking/reaso n ed. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No

¶50

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.14 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Hakam Singh v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hakam Singh v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balwant Singh and Others Vs Union of India and Others

Shri Bhagwan Rohilla and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Manmohan Bir Singh and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sarjan Vs Managing Director and Others

Pritam Singh Saini Vs Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation

Gurbachan Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.