Photo used for indicative purpose only. Source internet
Shimla, Aug 4
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has taken a serious view of non-compliance with its previous directions and warned of contempt proceedings against the Vice Chancellor of a respondent university for failing to fully implement a reinstatement order in letter and spirit.
Justice Sandeep Sharma, while hearing COPC of 2025 in the matter of Dr. Harminder Singh Baweja Vs. Mr. Siddarth Acharya & Anr., noted that despite repeated opportunities, the respondents neither filed a reply nor complied with the mandate of the judgment that had directed reinstatement of the petitioner. “This Court has reason to presume and believe that respondents have no respect for law and they are hell-bent to defeat the mandate contained in the judgment, alleged to have been violated,” observed the judge.
The original order had directed that Dr. Harminder Singh Baweja be permitted to resume duties on the post he held prior to his deputation, with all consequential benefits from February 1, 2024. Although the respondents had challenged the decision in Letters Patent Appeal (LPA No. 361 of 2021), the Division Bench, in its order dated July 16, 2025, declined to stay the operation of the judgment. While partially modifying the financial benefits to start from April 1, 2025, the Division Bench upheld the petitioner’s right to rejoin as Professor.
However, when Dr. Baweja approached the university for implementation, the Vice Chancellor, through an order dated July 22, 2025, allegedly refused to restore him to his full previous position, particularly by denying him the headship of the department.
Taking strong exception to this partial compliance, Justice Sharma remarked, “Having taken note of tone and tenor of order dated 22.07.2025, prima facie this Court is of the view that respondent No. 2 has committed contempt of Court and as such, needs to be dealt with in accordance with law.”
Nevertheless, the Court extended a final opportunity to the Vice Chancellor to comply fully with its judgment before proceeding further. “Before framing of charge, this Court deems it fit to grant one opportunity to respondent No. 2 to do the needful strictly in terms of judgment, alleged to have been violated,” said Justice Sharma, directing respondent No. 2 to remain present in court on August 5, 2025.
About the Author
The HimachalScape Bureau comprises seasoned journalists from Himachal Pradesh with over 25 years of experience in leading media conglomerates such as The Times of India and United News of India. Known for their in-depth regional insights, the team brings credible, research-driven, and balanced reportage on Himachal’s socio-political and developmental landscape.
