The PSEB Engineers Association has launched a sharp accusation against the Punjab government, alleging a serious breach of a long-standing agreement. The engineers' body claims the state administration unilaterally diluted the eligibility criteria for appointing the Chairman-cum-Managing Director (CMD) of the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL), violating a tripartite pact signed in 2010.
Violation of Agreement Sparks Outcry
In a strongly-worded letter addressed to Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann on Tuesday, the association demanded the immediate withdrawal of the recent amendments. The engineers warned that this move severely undermines technical leadership within the critical power sector. The controversy erupted following a notification issued by the Punjab Department of Power on Monday, which altered the existing rules governing appointments to the top post at PSPCL.
The revised rules now permit the state government to appoint an IAS officer of secretary rank or above, whether serving or retired, as the CMD of PSPCL. This marks a significant dilution from the previous criteria, which restricted eligibility to IAS officers holding the rank of principal secretary or financial commissioner.
Unilateral Move Ignored Mandatory Consultations
The core of the association's grievance lies in the process. They assert that the amendment was made without the mandatory consultations with employee unions, a direct violation of Clause 5(g) of the 2010 Tripartite Agreement (TPA). This crucial clause was signed during the bifurcation of the former Punjab State Electricity Board into PSPCL and the Punjab State Transmission Corporation Limited.
The clause explicitly mandates that any changes to the qualifications or experience required for the posts of CMDs and directors must be preceded by consultations with the signatory unions. Er Ajay Pal Singh Atwal, the association's General Secretary, argued that this dilution further weakens the technical leadership in a sector that demands specialized, hands-on expertise.
Technocrat vs. Generalist: The Leadership Debate
The engineers maintain that power generation, transmission, and distribution involve complex engineering challenges, stringent regulatory compliance, and sophisticated grid management. These areas, they insist, require a full-time technocrat with deep domain knowledge rather than a generalist administrator.
The association recalled that even earlier relaxations, which allowed IAS officers at the principal secretary level to be appointed, were opposed by engineers on similar grounds. They noted that memorandums submitted to the government in December 2024 and October of this year, conveying their steadfast concerns, have been ignored.
The 2010 agreement, which was formally notified on May 24, 2011, was designed with a key objective: to safeguard service conditions and preserve institutional expertise after the restructuring of the electricity board. One of its fundamental aims was to ensure that the newly created power utilities remained professionally managed by sector experts to enhance efficiency and accountability. The current dispute puts that very objective in jeopardy.
