In 2022, former Chief Justice of India N. V. Ramana highlighted that nearly 50% of all pending cases involved government litigation. More than a decade ago, the National Litigation Policy was introduced to reduce the burden of cases involving the Central and State Governments and Public Sector Undertakings. However, by September 2023, the National Judicial Data Grid reported over 4.44 crore cases pending before District and Taluka Courts, 60.80 lakh cases in High Courts, and more than 80,000 cases before the Supreme Court. Government-related litigation remains a longstanding issue in India, straining both the judicial system and public funds. The legal disputes surrounding NIPER Mohali serve as a microcosm of this larger problem.
Litigation is a common occurrence at NIPER Mohali, involving individuals from various sections, including scientists, technical assistants, faculty, and students. Interestingly, those occupying key administrative positions—such as Mr. Vikram Singh (Section Officer), Mr. Manoj Tiwari (Assistant Registrar), Dr. K. B. Tikoo (Dean), and Dr. Arvind Kumar Bansal (former Dean and former Head of the Department of Pharmaceutics)—have largely avoided litigation. Even when petitions are filed against them, courts often dismiss them, citing that these individuals do not hold public office, despite NIPER Mohali being almost entirely government-funded.
A significant rise in court cases followed the appointment of Mr. PJP Singh Waraich as the Registrar of NIPER Mohali. One such case involves Dr. Neeraj Kumar, who challenged his removal in court. Recently, he filed a perjury case (CM-159-LPA-2025 in/and LPA-1067-2025) against Mr. Waraich, alleging that false information submitted to the court led to his termination. This case was heard on January 15, 2025.
As Registrar, Mr. Waraich plays a central role in all litigation involving NIPER Mohali, as cases are filed and responses submitted through his office. Ironically, he has also filed a case (CWP-1676-2024) against NIPER Mohali and the Union of India. Since NIPER is represented by the Registrar’s office, this means Mr. Waraich is effectively both the petitioner and the defender in a case seeking financial dues for a period when he was suspended and removed by Dr. Raghuram Rao Akkinepally. In many instances, the same lawyer represents both NIPER Mohali and the Union of India, raising concerns about conflicts of interest.
Several longstanding legal battles persist at NIPER Mohali. In 2017, Mohd Shahid Khan and others filed a case (CWP-29678-2017) over delayed promotions. The case remains unresolved and was last heard on February 3, 2025. Similarly, Nisha Sharma and others filed a case (CWP-18268-2014) in 2014, which is still pending. A related contempt petition (COCP No. 597 of 2019) was also filed. The latest hearing on this matter took place on January 20, 2025.
Seeking retirement benefits often requires legal intervention at NIPER Mohali. Cases like those of Mr. Hardeep Singh and Mr. Kultar Singh Saini highlight this issue. Mr. Hardeep Singh, a former Section Officer (Administration), was denied pensionary benefits for his service at NIPER Mohali. He had to file multiple cases (CWP-9624 of 2016, CWP-16080 of 2020, and CWP-25479-2023) before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana ruled in his favor on January 8, 2025. The court found that NIPER had wrongfully withheld his dues for over a decade and ordered interest payments on the delayed disbursement. Despite this ruling, neither the Registrar nor the Director of NIPER faced penalties.
Mr. Kultar Singh Saini filed a case (CWP-15308-2024) that was heard on August 22, 2024. He sought benefits under the Personal Promotion Scheme, annual increments, pay refixation, medical reimbursements, productivity-linked bonuses, and interest on pension and other retirement benefits—all of which had been denied to him.
Contempt of court petitions are also frequent at NIPER Mohali. The NIPER Research Employees Welfare Association filed a contempt petition (COCP-3122-2016) against the Secretary of the Department of Pharmaceuticals, which remains unresolved. The institute’s regularization process is also under legal scrutiny (CWP-9663-2017 and CWP-26243-2017), with hearings ongoing since 2017, including a recent session on December 5, 2024.
Mr. Kultar Singh Saini also filed a contempt petition (COCP-352 of 2023). In response, NIPER claimed it had issued a formal order regarding the contested increment. However, the High Court imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000 on NIPER, which was deposited into the Punjab and Haryana High Court Lawyers Welfare Fund. The financial penalty was likely borne by the institute using taxpayer money rather than being paid personally by responsible officials. A second fine of Rs. 10,000 was imposed in the same case on January 31, 2024, reflecting the repetitive nature of such litigation at NIPER Mohali.
Another case, filed by Dr. Animesh Roy (CWP-2101-2021), saw a recent hearing on November 14, 2024. Despite being in court for three years, NIPER’s legal team requested more time to file a response. The judge granted an additional eight weeks, warning that any further delay would result in a Rs. 5,000 penalty. In a related case (CWP-2102-2021), the court criticized NIPER for contradictory statements, questioning how the institution could simultaneously direct arbitration while proposing its Registrar as a nominee for the arbitration panel. These inconsistencies highlight administrative inefficiencies and lack of accountability.
Delays in filing responses and repeated adjournments are common legal tactics at NIPER Mohali, often leading to penalties against the institution. Even workmen at NIPER Mohali face legal battles. Employees such as Nannu Ram (CWP-20272-2023), Surjit Singh (CWP-20284-2023), Mela Ram (CWP-20304-2023), and Ram Narayan (CWP-20311-2023) approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court after their services were terminated. Their case was heard on February 15, 2024, when NIPER’s lawyer accepted the notice.
The adage “justice delayed is justice denied” is evident in numerous NIPER Mohali cases. Even criminal cases involving former directors accused of corruption remain unresolved. Two former directors, facing CBI investigations, have passed away, yet decisions on their cases are still pending in the CBI Court. This reflects the broader systemic inefficiencies plaguing both NIPER Mohali and the Indian judiciary at large.
