Punjab Power Notification Under Fire: Engineers Tell HC "Date, Not Merit" Decided Who Gets Absorbed

Senior PSPCL engineers move Punjab & Haryana High Court against the PSTCL absorption notification, saying a date-cutoff replaced merit criteria under the 2010 Transfer Scheme. HC restrains action till Sept 21.

North Desk Correspondent

Chandigarh, September 19

Twenty-plus senior engineers of the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) have dragged the Punjab government’s power-sector transfer scheme back into the Punjab and Haryana High Court, arguing that a notification meant to decide their permanent absorption into the Punjab State Transmission Corporation Limited (PSTCL) instead decided it by calendar, not merit.

The petition came up before the division bench of Justices Harsimran Singh Sethi and Minderjeet Yadav this week. The bench did not rule on the core challenge. Instead, it recorded that the State’s counsel had sought time “to have appropriate instructions as to whether the grievance raised by the petitioners can be considered”, adjourned the matter to next week, and made clear “no further adjournment shall be granted on the next date of hearing.” In the meantime, the order directs, “no precipitate action be taken for absorption in pursuance to the challenge”.

PSTCL Absorption Notification: What’s actually being challenged

At the centre of the case is a notification — PSTCL Absorption Notification — dated May 11, 2026, by which the Punjab government fixed eligibility for a one-time option to be permanently absorbed into PSTCL. The petition sets out exactly how the cutoff works: under Clause 1(a) of that notification, only PSPCL employees who were on secondment in PSTCL as on 11.05.2026 were made eligible; under Clause 1(b), eligibility was extended only to those “repatriated between 12.01.2026 and 11.05.2026”.

Anyone seconded to PSTCL earlier and repatriated before January 12, 2026 — however senior, however experienced — falls outside the window.

The petitioners, represented by Vikas Chatrath and Abhishek Sharma, state the objection in blunt terms: the notification “substitutes an arbitrary date/status criterion for the controlling considerations of suitability, ability, experience, number and nature of vacancies prescribed under Clause 6(12) of the Punjab Power Sector Reforms Transfer Scheme, 2010”.

In other words, they say, an employee’s fitness for permanent absorption is being decided not by what the 2010 scheme says it should be decided by, but by where that employee happened to be posted, and when — a posting the employer itself controls.

The 2010 scheme and the promises that came with it

PSTCL Absorption Notification: The dispute traces back to April 16, 2010, when the Punjab government notified the Punjab Power Sector Reforms Transfer Scheme, unbundling the erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) and splitting it into PSPCL (generation/distribution) and PSTCL (transmission).

Under Clauses 6(2)–(4) of that scheme, all personnel stood transferred to PSPCL, with some placed on secondment to PSTCL “without alteration of their basic service status, seniority or terms of employment”. Clause 6(12) is explicit that suitability, ability, experience, and the number and nature of vacancies are to be the “controlling considerations” for permanent absorption — not posting history.

Seven months later, on November 19, 2010, the Punjab government, PSPCL, PSTCL and the employees’ unions signed a Tripartite Agreement — formally notified on May 24, 2011 — reiterating that seniority and cadre would remain common between the two entities, and adding a specific procedural safeguard: Clause 5(g) required “prior consultation with the signatories before modification of the Transfer Scheme/service framework”. The petitioners argue the May 2026 notification was issued without that consultation.

This isn’t the first round

PSTCL Absorption Notification: The petition is careful to establish that this challenge is not a repeat of earlier litigation. In 2024, a separate petition had sought constitution of the committee contemplated under Clause 6(12) to finalise absorption. The court, in that case and connected matters, noted on May 13, 2025 the effect of PSTCL officers’ repatriation on promotional avenues, “including promotion to the post of Senior Executive Engineer”, and on September 16, 2025 directed implementation of the scheme with consideration of “relevant cadre strength, vacancies and repatriation particulars in terms of Clause 6(12)”.

That led, on October 23, 2025, to a committee actually being constituted. A Draft Notification followed on January 12, 2026, proposing that PSPCL employees on secondment in PSTCL who had completed one year of secondment could exercise a one-time absorption option, with objections invited within 15 days.

Objections were duly filed on January 27, 2026 — the petition says “Petitioner No.14 and other similarly situated employees” objected specifically to restricting eligibility to those currently on secondment and to the one-year condition, seeking that all eligible erstwhile PSEB cadre employees be considered.

Those objections, the petitioners say, went nowhere. The final notification issued on May 11, 2026 “neither considers the objections submitted by the affected officers… nor discloses any reasoned decision or recommendation of the statutory Committee” constituted in October 2025.

When that May 2026 notification was placed before the court in May 2026, the court “did not adjudicate upon its validity on merits,” and instead disposed of those petitions “by granting liberty to the affected parties to independently challenge the Notification dated 11.05.2026 and raise all consequential pleas”. The current petition is that independent challenge.

A conflict-of-interest angle

PSTCL Absorption Notification: The petitioners raise a pointed institutional detail: that the committee’s consultation and reasoning are especially important to scrutinise “particularly when the offices of Administrative Secretary, Power Department, CMD-PSPCL and CMD-PSTCL were held by the same incumbent” the same official effectively sitting across the negotiating table from all sides of the decision.

Who’s asking, and what they’re asking for

The named petitioners include Sukhjot Singh Sidhu (Deputy Chief Engineer, PSPCL Bathinda), Ajay Bansal, Navdeep Singh Chahal, Sanjeev Garg, Rajesh Kumar Jindal, Mohit Gupta and Neeru Singal — all senior Deputy Chief Engineer or Superintending Engineer-rank officers based largely out of Patiala — among a longer list of similarly ranked PSPCL engineers.

Their prayer is for the High Court to quash the May 11, 2026 notification and all consequential action, and to direct that permanent absorption be reconsidered “strictly in accordance with Clause 6(12) of the… Transfer Scheme,” after “meaningful consultation with the signatories to the Tripartite Agreement, reasoned disposal of the objections… and a duly recorded recommendation of the statutory Committee”. They have also sought interim protection of their seniority and promotional prospects, and a stay on the notification’s operation — the relief this week’s order has, for now, partially granted by restraining “precipitate action” pending the next hearing.

The State of Punjab, PSPCL and PSTCL are yet to file a reply on merits.  

ALSO: Mysterious Nithari Case’s Surendra Koli Found Dead, Months After Acquittal

ALSO: ASI Shot Dead In Amritsar: Harjit Singh Was On PCR Duty

Follow North Desk on WhatsApp for the latest from Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Vb7ccdxJENy2H87DBG3E