Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the arrears paid in 2000-2001 on account of retrospective wage revision could be taken into account for tariff fixation for earlier tariff years and whether the Tribunal was justified in directing their reimbursement in the forthcoming tariff period.
Analysis: The Commission's regulatory powers under the governing statute and the 1999 and 2001 Regulations were wide enough to permit tariff revision and, in appropriate cases, reconsideration of tariff-related matters. However, tariff making was a staged process and the generating company was aware of the wage revision and actual arrears while filing and amending its tariff petitions. The relevant additional cost data were available, but the claim was not pressed in the original proceedings and was sought to be raised long after the tariff orders had attained finality. The Court held that the claim could not be reopened after such delay and that the direction to absorb the cost in a later tariff period would unfairly burden a different set of consumers and was not consistent with the tariff framework.
Conclusion: The claim for inclusion of the retrospective salary arrears in tariff for the earlier period was not maintainable, and the Tribunal's direction allowing reimbursement in a later tariff period was unsustainable.