Punjab Power Engineers Clash with Government Over Leadership Criteria Amendments
The longstanding conflict between the Punjab government and the state's power engineers has escalated dramatically following controversial amendments to the eligibility criteria for top leadership positions at Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) and Punjab State Transmission Corporation Limited (PSTCL). The most contentious provision allows for the appointment of secretary-level IAS officers as Chairmen-cum-Managing Directors (CMDs), a move that has sparked fierce opposition from technical professionals.
Formal Protest Against Unilateral Changes
The PSEB Engineers' Association has formally registered its protest by writing to Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann, asserting that the government's amendments violate long-standing agreements and threaten the professional management of the state's critical power utilities. The association revealed that these changes were introduced during a cabinet meeting on March 29 and officially notified by the Department of Power on March 30.
The core controversy centers on the government's decision to permit secretary-level IAS officers to assume CMD positions at PSPCL and PSTCL. These roles were traditionally reserved for technical experts with extensive backgrounds in power generation, transmission, and distribution. The association argues that appointing administrative officers to lead these highly technical organizations effectively "downgrades" positions requiring specialized operational expertise.
Violation of Tripartite Agreement Alleged
The engineers' association alleges that the government's move constitutes a clear breach of the Tripartite Agreement (TPA) executed in 2010 during the restructuring of the Punjab State Electricity Board. According to Clause 5(g) of the TPA, any modifications to leadership qualifications must only occur after proper consultation and mutual understanding with all signatories. The association maintains that the government acted unilaterally, undermining the sanctity of this legally notified agreement.
Interestingly, the association had already raised objections in a formal communication to Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann on December 23 of the previous year. They flagged that the appointment of a Secretary-level IAS officer as CMD in October 2025 violated Clause 5(g) of the TPA, months before the March 2026 amendments were formally notified.
Diluted Technical Qualifications Spark Concern
While the updated standards maintain a technical route requiring a Bachelor's degree in Engineering or professional accounting certifications with at least 25 years of utility experience, the newly codified administrative route for IAS officers has raised significant concerns. For the PSPCL CMD position, the state can now appoint a serving or retired IAS officer who has reached the rank of secretary. For PSTCL CMD, the requirement is a serving IAS officer with at least 16 years of experience.
Similar administrative alternatives have been introduced for Directors of Finance and Human Resources, allowing the appointment of serving IAS officers with at least 12 years of experience. Perhaps more troubling are the changes affecting Technical Director posts, which have substantially lowered qualification standards.
Technical Expertise Requirements Weakened
According to senior PSPCL officials, the amendments have significantly diluted the requirements for Director (Generation) of PSPCL. Previously, candidates needed to have served as a Chief Engineer (CE) for a minimum of one year, with at least five years at the SE/CE level specifically in the Generation field, or 20 years overall in Generation.
Under the new criteria, a CE who served for two years in any field—without a single day in generation—becomes eligible. Additionally, a Superintending Engineer (SE) with just three years of generation experience can qualify even without promotion to CE. This makes non-generation engineers eligible for the top technical role overseeing generation operations while excluding experienced generation engineers who served 20 years or more in the field but completed less than two years at the CE level.
Similar anomalies have been introduced for Director (Distribution), Director (Commercial) of PSPCL, and Director (Technical) of PSTCL, creating what engineers describe as a systematic devaluation of technical expertise.
Pattern of Controversial Appointments
The current controversy follows earlier developments that established a troubling pattern. In October 2025, the government appointed an IAS officer at Secretary level as CMD of PSPCL, which violated the eligibility criteria in force at that time. The government subsequently amended the qualifications to retroactively accommodate this appointment.
This decision coincided with the termination of Director (Generation) Harjit Singh on November 4, 2025, just two days after the new CMD assumed charge. The very first day of the new CMD's office also saw the suspension of Chief Engineer Harish Sharma over fuel cost allegations at state-run thermal plants.
Unresolved Personnel Issues Compound Crisis
The removal of Harjit Singh has become a particular flashpoint in this ongoing conflict. He was terminated without any show-cause notice, inquiry, or opportunity to defend himself. Sources indicate there were differences between Harjit Singh and the government over proposed liquidation of PSPCL properties and the signing of new Power Purchase Agreements.
While PSPCL subsequently revoked CE Harish Sharma's suspension and posted him to a new role, no decision has been taken regarding Harjit Singh's reinstatement, despite the termination resting on similar allegations. Notably, the PSPCL committee constituted by the High Court to examine the fuel cost issue found no substance in the original allegations—yet Harjit Singh remains out of service.
The post of Director (Generation) was advertised on Monday, March 30—the same day the new eligibility notification was issued. This position had been vacant since Harjit Singh's removal on November 4, 2025, creating a gap of nearly five months. Critics argue that the simultaneous release of amended eligibility criteria and the advertisement raises serious questions about whether the criteria were tailored to specific candidates.
Warnings of Sector-Wide Consequences
In its memorandum to Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann, the PSEB Engineers' Association warned that shifting away from professional and technocratic management could have immediate consequences for the state. They emphasized that undermining technical leadership could affect Punjab's long-term interests, including potential implications for the forthcoming paddy season—a period of peak power demand in the agricultural state.
PSEBE Association General Secretary Ajaypal Singh Atwal issued a stark warning, describing the combination of diluted leadership qualifications with what he called "artificially lowered loss figures and manipulation of other parameters" to distort PSPCL's revenue stream. He suggested this combination could prove a "death knell" for the Punjab power sector.
Conflicting Claims and Demands
The Association has demanded immediate withdrawal of the amendments and a return to the consultative process prescribed in the 2011 Power Department notification. However, PSPCL CMD Basant Garg defended the changes, stating that "Last year, when applications were sought for the post of Director Technical PSTCL only one candidate applied following which he had to be recruited. Now the recent amendments have been done to increase the pool of people who can be considered for the post."
The PSEBEA firmly rejected the CMD's claims, countering that a total of 49 people had applied for various positions, with 16 persons being eligible for posts including Director Technical PSTCL, CMD PSPCL, Director Distribution, and Director Commercial. This discrepancy highlights the deepening divide between the government's administrative perspective and the engineers' technical viewpoint.
As the standoff continues, the future of Punjab's power sector management hangs in the balance, with technical professionals and administrative officers locked in a fundamental disagreement about the qualifications necessary to lead the state's critical energy infrastructure.
