Time and again, it becomes evident that the NIPER Mohali administration does not apply its rules uniformly. The contrast between the cases of Mr. PJP Singh Waraich and Dr. Neeraj Kumar is a telling example.
In CM-459-2023 in LPA-2094-2012, where NIPER Mohali was respondent No. 4, Mr. Waraich had been suspended and later terminated as per a High Court verdict. He pursued his challenge through the LPA. But when the case came up, NIPER Mohali’s counsel made a remarkable statement:
“We have no objection to the prayer made by the applicant.”
This open support was hardly surprising. At the time, Mr. Rajneesh Tingal continued as Joint Secretary in the Department of Pharmaceuticals and had been granted an extension. With him in place, neither Director Prof. Dulal Panda nor Chairman Dr. Girish Sahni was in any position to oppose Mr. Waraich’s reinstatement.
As a result, there was no resistance to his claim to rejoin the institute.
What further raises eyebrows is that NIPER Mohali did not advertise the registrar’s post for five years, the entire period during which Mr. Waraich remained out of service. There was no legal bar on recruitment. The institute could have easily issued an advertisement. It did not.
Instead, a special meeting of the Board was convened to ensure his return as Registrar. Not a single question was raised about the tenure-bound nature of the post, or the fact that no institute in India permits continuation of a Registrar permanently—because it is a single-cadre position under NIPER Recruitment Rules. Rules were simply bent to accommodate him.
Now compare this with the treatment given to Dr. Neeraj Kumar.
The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered a verdict in his favour. Instead of accepting the judgment and taking action against those responsible—such as Dr. Saranjeet Singh or the primary architect of the problem, Dr. Arvind Kumar Bansal—NIPER Mohali chose to do the opposite. It launched an aggressive legal fight against Dr. Neeraj, determined to block his joining at any cost.
NIPER Mohali even took the matter to the Supreme Court, spending lakhs of rupees from the public exchequer. But in the Waraich case, the institute did not even effectively counter the arguments of his counsel, let alone approach the Supreme Court. When they were aligned with his return, escalation was never considered.
Photo: Prof Dulal Panda
If NIPER can spend enormous sums to prevent Dr. Neeraj from joining, why did it not adopt the same approach in the case of Mr. Waraich?
In Dr. Neeraj’s case, the Division Bench did not grant back wages for the years he did not work. It only imposed a penalty—one that should rightfully be recovered from the officials responsible, particularly Dr. Saranjeet Singh and, above all, Dr. Bansal. Yet instead of pursuing accountability, stopping their pension, or initiating disciplinary action, the institute is relentlessly chasing Dr. Neeraj all the way to the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, when it came to paying dues to Mr. Waraich upon reinstatement, NIPER Mohali conveniently chose not to challenge the order.
Forcing an individual who has been jobless for a decade to again fight for justice—even after a favourable Division Bench verdict—is not only harassment but a criminal waste of public money. It drains the resources of an already distressed employee, while the institute shows no such enthusiasm in cases involving its favoured individuals.
I have also learnt that Dr. Neeraj Kumar had earlier opposed Mr. Waraich in the Supreme Court. Now, tables have turned, and as Registrar, Mr. Waraich—in whose name all litigation is filed under the NIPER Act—appears to be driving the institute’s legal strategy against Dr. Neeraj.
This is a textbook case of non-application of mind by the Director and a willingness to act according to the wishes of a Registrar who is named in a CBI FIR and has not been exonerated till date.
At NIPER Mohali, one rule seems to prevail:
“Show me the face, and I will show you the rule.”
