The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the PSPCL’s decision to implement pension revisions under the Fifth Pay Commission from December 1, 2011, instead of January 1, 2006. (File photo)The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL), as an autonomous body, has the right to decide when to implement Pay Commission benefits for its employees while adding that financial constraints are a legitimate consideration in fixing such dates.Delivering a common judgment on August 19 on more than 30 writ petitions filed by retired employees, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar upheld the PSPCL’s decision to implement pension revisions under the Fifth Pay Commission from December 1, 2011, instead of January 1, 2006, the date from which the state has applied the panel’s recommendations to its employees.The court ordered, “The PSPCL being a statutory corporation is entitled to prescribe a cut-off date for implementation of the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission in view of its financial health. The inability of the Corporation to extend benefits of enhanced pension has been demonstrated by relying on cogent material and as such, is not arbitrary in nature.”The petitioners, mostly former employees of the erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board (now PSPCL), argued that they had served for over 25 years and were entitled to the same benefits as government staff from January 2006. They challenged government and PSPCL orders restricting revised pension benefits to those retiring on or after December 1, 2011.Justice Brar noted that while the Punjab government accepted the Fifth Pay Commission recommendations from January 2006 and issued revised pay rules in May 2009, pension benefits were extended only through a notification dated December 15, 2011. This notification removed the requirement of 33 years of service for receiving a full pension, allowing employees with 25 years of qualifying service to receive 50 per cent of their last basic pay or the average of the last 10 months’ emoluments, whichever was higher. However, these benefits were explicitly limited to employees retiring on or after December 1, 2011.“Since the petitioners had retired before December 1, 2011, they were denied the said benefits,” the court observed.The judgment recalled that in 2013, a coordinate bench had quashed the cut-off date of December 1, 2011, terming it arbitrary, and noting that no material had been placed on record to show it was based on financial considerations. The state had challenged that order through an appeal, which remained pending.Story continues below this adJustice Brar upheld PSPCL’s autonomy to take decisions on service conditions, including pay and pension, in line with its financial position. “Financial health is a valid consideration,” the court stressed, particularly for a utility that operates with its own resources and does not depend entirely on government funding.The court pointed out that PSPCL is required to maintain fiscal discipline to ensure an uninterrupted power supply and meet infrastructure needs. “Public utilities must strike a balance between employee entitlements and their capacity to bear the financial burden,” the judgment said, adding that the principle of economic viability often outweighs demands for uniform application of benefits in autonomous bodies.It then disposed of the batch of petitions seeking backdated pension benefits.Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd