O&M) &M) SUS v. Punjab State State Transmission Corporation Limit Limited and another
Case Details
CWP-24236 236-2022 and connected matters 1 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH AT CHANDIGA NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH ases) 260(3 cases) 2025 Date of decision: 11.11.2025 Jaspreet Sing t Singh and others ioners ...Petitioners (i) CWP-24236-2022(O&M) &M) SUS VERSUS Punjab State State Transmission Corporation Limit Limited and another ...Responden ondents (ii) CWP-898-2023 2023 Singh Hakam Singh ioner ...Petitioner SUS VERSUS Punjab State State Power Corporation Ltd. and oth nd others ...Responden ondents (iii) CWP-25601-2024(O&M) &M) Chander Moh er Mohan and another ioners ...Petitioners SUS VERSUS State of Punja f Punjab and others ...Responden ondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate fo cate for the petitioner(s) in CWP- 24236-2022. Mr. B.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the 2023. the petitioner in CWP-898-
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate 25601-2024. vocate for the petitioner(s) in CWP- unjab. Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.14 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24236 236-2022 and connected matters 2 Mr. Satyam Tandon, Advocate f 25601-2024. ocate for respondent No.2 in CWP- Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate fo 24236-2022. cate for respondent No.2 in CWP- Mr. Sumit Nain, Advocate for re 24236-2022 and 898-2023. for respondent(s)-PSPCL in CWP- Harpreet Sin eet Singh Brar, J.(Oral) 1. This common order shall dispos dispose of all the above-mentioned w ned writ petitions as t s as they arise from a similar factua factual matrix and pertain to commo common questions of ns of law. However, for the sake of ke of brevity, the facts are taken fro en from CWP-24236 4236-2023. 2. The present petition is preferre referred under Articles 226/227 of th 7 of the Constitution tution of India seeking issuance of w e of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of ng of memo dated 06.07.2022 (Ann (Annexure P-5) issued by responde pondent No.1 vide wh ide which the names have been called called for directly recruited Division ivisional Accountants ntants for promotion to the post of Acc of Accounts Officer, while ignoring th ring the share quota uota of PSPCL Cadre Assistant Acc nt Accounts Officers (AAOs) who a who are senior to thei to their counterparts from Transco. Fu co. Further, a prayer has been made f ade for issuance of a e of a writ in the nature of mandam ndamus directing respondent No.1 No.1 to maintain pari in parity in promotion to the posts of A ts of Accounts Officers in Transco fro co from AAOs from P from PSPCL and Transco cadre, respe , respectively. 3. Briefly, the facts are that on hat on 16.04.2010, the Punjab Sta b State Electricity Bo city Board (PSEB) was bifurcated into ed into Punjab State Power Corporatio poration Limited (PS d (PSPCL) and Power State Tra e Transmission Corporation Limite Limited (Transco). B co). Both corporations are owned by ed by the State of Punjab and therefor erefore, PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.14 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24236 236-2022 and connected matters 3 it was decide decided that the employees shall have l have a common seniority and cadre. cadre. It was also dec so decided that the employees can b can be transferred from one entity entity to another. The r. The petitioners are working as AAO s AAOs and had qualified Part I and I and II of SAS exam examination and therefore, are bein e being promoted as SAS Accountant untants. However, the er, the said SAS Accountants are elig re eligible for further promotion to th n to the post of Acco f Accounts Officer on completion of ion of 05 years of service. In spite spite of being eligible ligible, the petitioners are not being co eing considered for the said promotion otion. 4. Learned counsel for the peti e petitioners contends that the tot he total sanctioned ca ned cadre strength for post of Accoun ccounts Officer is 78. Additionally, 0 ally, 07 posts were sa ere sanctioned in the share of BBMB BMB and 13 for Transco as share quo re quota posts of PSPC f PSPCL in Transco. Learned counsel ounsel submits that when Transco cam co came into existenc istence, it independently issued adve d advertisement for recruitment to t t to the post of Divis Divisional Accountant. The said Div id Divisional Accountants recruited b uited by Transco in th o in the year 2012 were promoted as A ed as AAO/SAS Accountant in the ye the year 2019 since t ince the promotion was subject to ect to them clearing the SAS Part Part II examination. ation. Vide impugned memo da dated 06.07.2022 (Annexure P re P-5), respondent- -Transco called for service record records of 08 SAS Accountants for th s for the purpose of p e of promotion to the post of Acc f Accounts Officer, however, it on it only included the n d the names of employees directly rec tly recruited by Transco. The petitione titioners are much sen ch senior to those whose records have s have been called for as they have bee ve been working as A g as AAOs in the erstwhile PSEB sin EB since the year 2009 (for petitione titioners No.1 to 5) a o 5) and 2012 (for petitioner No.6). o.6). Further, 13 posts have also bee lso been reserved for P d for PSPCL cadre employees workin orking in Transco. In spite of this, the his, their PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.14 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24236 236-2022 and connected matters 4 claim has be has been unjustly and arbitrarily ig rily ignored in gross violation of th of the tripartite agr te agreement as well as the Punjab unjab Power Sector Reforms Transf Transfer Scheme, 201 e, 2010 (hereinafter 8Transfer Sche Scheme, 20109). At this stage, th age, the petitioners w ers would be satisfied if their gr eir grievances are considered by th by the Committee fo ittee formed under the Transfer Schem Scheme, 2010. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for sel for respondent-Transco submits th its that Transco has o has framed service regulations tions for its own employees who whose seniorities ar ties are maintained independently. T tly. The promotions of Transco cad o cadre employees ha ees have been done by the Departme artmental Promotion Committee. The e. There is no official fficial record to suggest that Transco a nsco agreed to a share quota of 13 pos 13 posts of Account counts Officers of PSPCL in Tran Transco. Rather, vide memo date o dated 21.09.2022 ( 022 (Annexure R-1/1), PSPCL was was informed that there are no sha o share quota posts posts available in Transco. Further s rther still, the petitioners are claimin claiming parity with with respect to seniority and prom promotion with the regular Transc Transco employees, h ees, however, they have not arrayed a rayed any person alleged to be junior junior to them who ha ho has been promoted. He further sub her submits that DPC was conducted o ucted on 06.10.2022 a 022 and 06 employees were promote omoted to the post of Accounts Office Officer, who also hav have not been impleaded in the pre he present case. Hence, the writ petitio petition deserves to b es to be dismissed for non-joinder of der of necessary and proper parties. B rties. Be that as it may it may, learned counsel produced notif d notification dated 23.10.2025 in Cou in Court and submitte bmitted that the committee for absorp absorption of employees in terms of th s of the Transfer Sche er Scheme, 2010 has been constituted ituted and the case of the petitioners ca ners can be effectively y it. ctively considered and decided by it. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.14 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24236 236-2022 and connected matters 5 6. Learned counsel for respondent ndent-PSPCL submits that it is a settle a settled principle tha le that deputation occurs between tw een two distinct entities as PSPCL an CL and Transco are d o are distinct legal entities. Further, n ther, neither the tripartite agreement n ent nor the Transfer ansfer Scheme, 2010 guarantees any es any right of promotion to PSPC PSPCL employees in ees in Transco. While Clause 6(12 6(12) of the Transfer Scheme, 201 e, 2010 provide for a e for absorption of personnel from PS rom PSPCL to Transco, the Committ mmittee entrusted wit ed with this responsibility was not con ot constituted. However, since the sam he same is done now, now, the case of the petitioners can be can be considered by it. 7. of the case. 8. I have heard learned counsel for sel for the parties and perused the reco e record On 16.09.2025, the following o ing order was passed by this Court Court in CWP-12018 2018-2024 wherein a similar issue issue was raised. The relevant part t part is reproduced b uced below: <4. In view of the issue ra e raised by learned counsel for t or the petitioners, this Court is constra strained to observe that in spite of t of the fact that the PSEB was unbund bundled 12 years ago, the matter tter of transfer and absorption of perso ersonnel still remains unsettled. Sin . Since a new entity-Transco was c as created with a distinct set set of responsibilities and functions, i ns, in formulating the Scheme, effor efforts were made to ensure an easy asy and efficient transition to ensu ensure stability and constitute a sepa separate cadre for Transco for for its smooth functioning. However, t er, the whimsical manner adopted ted by PSPCL in regard to transfer an er and absorption of personnel is n is not only antithetical to the object ject and intent of the policy but al t also appears to be tainted by mala f ala fide. It remains unexplained as as to why not even a Committee, in t in terms of Clause 12 of the Schem cheme, PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.14 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24236 236-2022 and connected matters 6 has been constituted by the the State. Further still, the Sta State Government has also failed to ed to provide a target date for t or the completion of this exercise, wh , which yet again defeats the enti entire purpose of framing the said said statutory scheme. Clearly, t y, the conduct of the State is symp ymptomatic of policy paralysis an is and bureaucratic inertia, which cann cannot go unnoticed by this Court. 5. As such, respondent No.1 No.1- the State of Punjab through gh its Principal Secretary to Govern vernment of Punjab, Department ent of Power, is directed to file an an affidavit deliberating upon t on the following: (i) Why has Clause 12 of 2 of the Scheme not been followed wed in letter and spirit? (ii) Why has no time limi limit been fixed for completion of t of the transfer and absorption o on of the personnel or constitutions ions of a Committee in terms of C of Clause 12 of the Scheme? (iii) Provide a detailed ro ed roadmap for implementation of t of the Scheme within reasonable able dispatch. 6. Respondent No.2-Chai hairman-cum-Managing Directo rector, PSPCL and respondent No.3-Ch Chairman cum-Managing Directo rector, Transco are also directed to su to submit the complete particulars lars of regarding the cadre strength, nu h, number of vacancies, nomenclatu lature of all posts in PSPCL and Tran Transco, respectively, along with t ith the details of repatriation of candida ndidates from Transco.= 9. It transpires that subsequent to ent to the abovementioned order, th er, the Department ment of Power, Government of Pun f Punjab has constituted a Committ mmittee under Clause Clause 6(12) of the Transfer Schem Scheme, 2010 vide notification date n dated 23.10.2025 t 025 to finalise transfer and permane ermanent absorption of personnel fro el from PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.14 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24236 236-2022 and connected matters 7 PSPCL and T and Transco. As such, this Court dee rt deems it appropriate to dispose of a se of all the above me mentioned writ petitions in the foll he following terms: i. The Committee constituted v tuted vide notification dated 23.10.202 .10.2025 shall consider the claims claims of the petitioners and pa d pass appropriate speaking orders rders after affording the petitioners a oners an opportunity to be heard, in te ent. , in terms of the tripartite agreement. ii. The needful be done within 0 ii. ithin 03 months of receipt of a certifie certified copy of this order. iii. iii. If any grievance surviv by survives post consideration by the th Committee, the petitioners oners will be at liberty to avail th vail the alternative legal remedies ava ies available to them. 10. Pending miscellaneous applic stands application(s), if any, also stands
Decision
ed of. disposed of. 11. Photocopy of this order be pl ected be placed on the file of connected cases. November 1 P.C ber 11, 2025 RAR) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasone Whether Reportable. : easoned. : Yes/No Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.14 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document