Crl. Misc. No. M-21702 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-21702 of 2011 Date of Decision : September 09, 2011 Bhoop Singh .... Petitioner Vs. S. C. Vashishta .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Petitioner Bhoop Singh in person with Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate as Amicus Curiae. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Crl. Misc. No. 47839 of 2011 : 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. Petitioner along with Ram Niwas Vashisht had filed C. W. P. No. 3485 of 1989 against Haryana State Electricity Board and General Crl. Misc. No. M-21702 of 2011 2 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-21702 of 2011 3 copy of this order. 5. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms.” 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 non- compliance 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. Crl. Misc. No. M-21702 of 2011 4 Rule discharged.” The petitioner's grievance in the instant petition under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is that false averments were made by the respondents in reply affidavit to contempt petition. The petitioner was appearing in person, but was not able to properly present and articulate his case, and therefore, on the preceding date of hearing, Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae, who is also present today along with petitioner in person. I have heard the petitioner in person and also the Amicus Curiae and perused the case file. The petitioner advanced the grievance that he was entitled to seniority at Sr. No. 46-A i.e. below Sr. No. 46, but has been wrongly granted seniority at Sr. No. 148-A. It was also submitted by the petitioner that in list of Operators Grade-I (Annexure P-3), Narinder Kumar at Sr. No. 38 and Pawan Kumar Gupta at Sr. No. 42 were concerned persons, but their namesakes have been mentioned as Pawan Kumar Gupta at Sr. No. 78 and Narinder Kumar at Sr. No. 91 in the reply affidavit. It was also submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner would suffer great loss in his service career on account of wrong order passed by the respondents. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the petitioner with the assistance of Amicus Curiae. It is apparent from the submissions of the petitioner that his Crl. Misc. No. M-21702 of 2011 5 main grievance is regarding his seniority and other service conditions and benefits. However, as per order Annexure P-14, passed in the Contempt Petition, the petitioner can resort to appropriate proceedings in accordance with law regarding fixation of seniority. Learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the petitioner had, in fact, filed Writ Petition to claim appropriate seniority, but the same had been withdrawn with liberty to file fresh one with better particulars and fresh petition is yet to be filed. Keeping in view all the circumstances, I am of the considered view that no case for initiating proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against the respondents is made out. The petitioner can air his grievance regarding seniority and service conditions and benefits in accordance with law by resorting to appropriate proceedings. The instant petition is dismissed. September 09, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE