- (1.) Application is allowed and Annexure P-15 is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Main Case: Bhoop Singh has filed the instant petition under Section 340 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short -- Cr.P.C.) against respondent S. C. Vashishta -- Chief Engineer.
(2.) Petitioner along with Ram Niwas Vashisht had filed C. W. P. No. 3485 of 1989 against Haryana State Electricity Board and General Manager of Panipat Thermal Power Plant and 37 private respondents (all Operators Grade-I in the Thermal Plant). The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 23.03.2010 (Annexure P-13). Operative part thereof is reproduced hereunder:- ".....On the consideration of the issue relating to relaxation for the petitioners, it shall be needless to state that the Board will ensure that the petitioners are otherwise eligible. If there is no other disqualification that the petitioners have, they shall be taken as having been appointed on the date when the appointment was given for the other private respondents and their seniority and the scales of pay shall be refixed by such change. If they obtain favourable consideration at the hands of the respondents by virtue of this direction, the petitioners, however, shall not be entitled to any past monetary benefits and they shall operate only prospectively. The respondents shall undertake this exercise within a period of 3 months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. 5. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms."
(3.) Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed in the writ petition, respondents passed order dated 24.12.2010, mentioning that the writ petitioners Bhoop Singh and Ram Niwas Vashisht were issued offer of appointment vide order dated 26.07.2010, but they had not joined. However, benefits mentioned in the order were given to the writ petitioners, subject to joining. The petitioner has been assigned seniority at Sr. No. 148-A below Wazir Singh and above Mahesh Kaushik. The petitioner, in the meanwhile, had filed COCP No. 1842 of 2010 complaining of noncompliance with the order passed in the writ petition. However, in view of the appointment of the writ petitioners, COCP No. 1842 of 2010 was disposed of as infructuous vide order dated 22.02.2011 (Annexure P-14). Operative part thereof is reproduced hereunder:- "In view of the appointment of the petitioner, the present petition has been rendered infructuous and is disposed of accordingly. In case, the petitioner is aggrieved against fixation of his seniority, he may take resort to appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. Rule discharged.";