 |
Saturday,
December 7, 2002, Chandigarh, India  
|
Govt ‘diluting’ PSEB autonomy Patiala, December 6 The engineer, who is now being termed as negligent towards his duties after he resisted efforts to give a power supply contract to a private firm following directions from top government functionaries, sticks to his convictions in an exclusive interview with The Tribune. From targeting persons appointed by Chief Minister Amarinder Singh to suggesting reforms in the power sector, to decrying government interference in the board, the engineer says he will continue giving his best to the board during his last year in service. Post-retirement, he plans to shift to his parental house in Delhi, breaking the 30-year bond with the PSEB, but remaining a bachelor. The views expressed by him in this interview have been made in his capacity as patron of the PSEB Engineers Association. Q: What are your views on the level of autonomy allowed to the PSEB? A: The very purpose of having an autonomous board has been defeated due to the day-to-day interference of the state government. Section 78 (A) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, states that the state government can only give policy directions to state electricity boards (SEBs). Besides, Section 18, listing the general duties of the SEBs, clearly states that the SEBs are competent to make supply of power available for distribution. Q: So what is your reaction to the recent controversy in which it has been alleged by the PSEB Engineers Association that top government officers interfered to give a power supply contract to a private firm, ignoring a government undertaking with which it had signed an agreement? A: Hundreds of purchase orders and contracts are decided by the board as per its competence. This case was, however, being pushed forward by some vested interests in the state government. The fact that hidden forces are applying pressure to favour a private company against a government undertaking proves that the case is not being dealt on merit basis. Q: So what should have been done? A: In my opinion if any party approaches the government for any purchase order it should not be entertained at all. In this case itself the government could have interfered if it had been ready to pay for the additional power import. However, when it is not giving a single penny as budgetary support for additional power purchase, it has no right to interfere in power trading arrangements. Q: When did you suspect the motives of the private firm KERPL? A: From the very beginning the company never dealt with the department concerned at any level. Every discussion took place at the highest level and we were kept out of the picture. Normally in the PSEB every case is examined at the Executive Engineer level following which it goes up the hierarchy and a decision is taken at the appropriate level. This case was, however, dealt “upside down”, with the decisions being conveyed to the board. Transparency and above-the-board approach was missing. Moreover, the culture of behind-the-scene negotiations and pulling the strings is condemnable. Q: What do you think is the present government’s stand on the PSEB and its future? A: You can understand that better if you know that the main architect of the Electricity Bill, 2001, which is still pending in Parliament, Mr Gajendra Haldia of the National Council for Applied Economic Research, is a member of the expert committee on power reforms instituted by Capt Amarinder Singh. The dice is heavily loaded against the PSEB as the other two members of the committee are from consultancy firms. Q: Has the PSEB got the support of successive governments, including the present one, to stand up on its legs again? A: Successive governments have not stood with us on the issue of allowing reasonable tariffs as well as curbing theft. The government should make it clear that power thieves will not be spared under any circumstances. That signal has never been sent and in 99 per cent of the theft cases the board has failed to go beyond the first step — registration of an FIR. The government talks of more stringent anti-theft laws but even whatever can be done under the existing laws is not being done. Q: What in your opinion were the glorious and worst periods for the PSEB? A: The best period was from 1984 to 1989 when the Ropar Thermal Plant was commissioned and the 207 MW Mukerian hydel project was taken up. Then we had the Ranjit Sagar dam. The secret of the PSEB’s viability has been in generation of hydro-electric power from its own sources and that of the BBMB. The worst phase started in 1997 when the board started borrowing from the market to meet its operational deficits. A turnaround is possible if reasonable tariffs are introduced, subsidy by the government is paid in cash and existing loan of Rs 4,500 crore due to the government is adjusted for the free power facility given during the past five years.  |
|
Chief Engineer ‘caused losses’ to PSEB Patiala, December 6 In a statement issued here today, the PSEB management claimed that Mr Padamjit Singh had arbitrarily interacted with a hydroelectric company in another case, which resulted in a loss of Rs 1.64 crore to the board. It also held him responsible for transferring power to other state electricity boards without requisite permission, even as the PSEB was facing a power crisis. The statement said Mr Padamjit Singh cancelled the power agreement with the KERPL even though he was informed that 50 MW of power contracted by the PSEB from Arunchal Pradesh through the Power Trading Corporation
(PTC) might not be available for export to the northern region as all three units of Ranganadi Hydro Power House in Arunachal were not working and there was no proper transmission link between the eastern grid and the north-eastern regional grid of which Arunachal was a part. It said power from Arunachal, for which an MoU was signed with the
PTC, would cost Rs 2.15 per KW against Rs 2.06 per KW contracted with the KERPL at the same delivery point, entailing an extra financial burden of Rs 8 crore per annum. It said the KERPL had been appointed sole selling agent by GRIDCO for selling power to the northern region by reducing sale to the southern region as it was having payment problems with constituents of that region. It said it was incorrect on the part of the engineers association to say that power was not available with
GRIDCO. The other allegations against the Chief Engineer pertain to the matter of purchase of power from the Malana Hydroelectric Power Company. The board statement said the Member, Transmission, and the Chairman negotiated with the company for purchase of 75 MW at Rs 2.30 per unit. It said Mr Padamjit Singh was asked to bring the purchase proposal for approval of the board, but instead he arbitrarily wrote to the company asking it to supply power at Rs 1.78 per unit. It said the company sold power to
Haryana at the rate of Rs 2.30 per unit following which the PSEB had to buy power from Goa and Uttaranchal through the PTC at the rate of Rs 2.35 and Rs 2.45 per unit during the paddy season, resulting in a financial liability of Rs 1.64 crore. The statement said the Chief Engineer had contracted — without the knowledge of the Chairman or the Member concerned — selling power to Haryana, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan transferring 558 lakh units to them through the PTC at a time when the state was facing a severe power crisis. |
|
Employees’ unions back Chief Engineer Ropar, December 6 Mr Surjit Singh, Mr
R.K. Tiwari, Mr B.S. Saini and Mr Harmesh Dhiman, all presidents of their respective unions, in a joint statement have said that this action of the board management had completely exposed the hollowness of the PSEB management which was trying to save financial resources by imposing cuts on the employees’ pay and perks, but was unable to resist pressure of the government which put an adverse affect on the financial resources of the board. They also said that they would join hands with the Engineers Association to oppose this action of the board effectively. The unions’ leaders also warned the PSEB management that if the dignity of the engineering community was not restored, then they would be forced to adopt an agitational path. Meanwhile, a deputation of the engineers of the Ropar Thermal Plant, led by Mr S.C. Chabba, joint secretary of the PSEB Engineers Association, today met Mr H.S. Sahai, member generation, PSEB, at the plant. The deputation lodged a protest with the Member (Generation) regarding the transfer of Mr Padamjit Singh and a report by two members of the board on the EPF fraud. They demanded that the report with regard to the EPF fraud be reviewed. |
 |
| Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir | Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs | Nation | Editorial | | Business | Sport | World | Mailbag | In Spotlight | Chandigarh Tribune | Ludhiana Tribune 50 years of Independence | Tercentenary Celebrations | | 122 Years of Trust | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
