Withdrawal of free power units for officers: govt’s decision upheld by LHC

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court sustained the decision of the government to withdraw free electricity units from officers BPS-17 and above of WAPDA, DISCOs, GENCOs, NTDC and PITC by way of monetisation.

The court passed this order on a petition of GEPCO Engineers & Officers Association through its Chairman challenging the impugned notification withdrawing free electricity units from officers BPS-17 and above by way of monetization.

The court upheld the impugned notification issued by Deputy Secretary (DISCOs), Ministry of Energy, following a decision by the federal cabinet committee on energy and observed that it represents a lawful exercise of administrative discretion grounded in policy considerations and financial prudence.

The court said, the petitioners’ contention that the facility has not been withdrawn for employees in BPS-1 to BPS-16 and the impugned action is discriminatory is misconceived.

The court also observed that the law does not mandate identical treatment in all circumstances, different categories of employees may legitimately be treated differently where the distinction is founded upon an intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, the court added.

The court remarked that the measure appears to be reasoned and rational, aimed at ensuring financial sustainability while maintaining employee remuneration within lawful parameters.

The court also observed that since the benefit of free electricity units was not founded upon any statutory rule and remained subject to administrative control, its reconfiguration through a policy decision does not give rise to any enforceable constitutional claim, the court added.

The impugned policy of monetization has been applied uniformly to all officers in BPS-17 and above, thereby maintaining parity within the relevant cadre, the court added.

The court remarked that the monetisation of free electricity units neither reduces basic pay nor alters any vested service right, it merely modifies the manner in which a discretionary facility is extended by the department, the court added.

The court observed that the policy has been adopted uniformly across entities within the power sector, thereby negating any allegation of arbitrary or discriminatory treatment.

The court also observed that insofar as the facility of free electricity units is concerned, the same was in the nature of a service-linked perk and privilege extended to employees with a view to facilitate the discharge of their duties and providing an incentive in service.

Such benefits, by their very character, do not constitute core service rights, statutory entitlements, or pensionable benefits, the court added.

The court said, the decision to reconfigure the facility of free electricity units by substituting it with a monetized component cannot, therefore, be said to be arbitrary or prejudicial, particularly when the overall remuneration of the employees remains unaffected.

Such a measure merely reflects a policy decision aimed at rationalizing the benefit in accordance with the organizational framework and administrative exigencies, the court added.

The court observed it is well settled that economic and fiscal policy decisions fall within the domain of the executive and are not open to judicial substitution unless shown to be manifestly arbitrary or violative of constitutional provisions, the court added.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2026