COCP-3882-2024 [204-7 cases +206 [204-1] Parveen Kumar and others Professor (Dr.) Jaspal Singh Sandhu and another [204-2] Amarjit Singh and others Professor (Dr.) Jaspal Singh Sandhu and another [204-3] Raj Kumar and others Professor (Dr.) Jaspal Singh Sandhu and another [204-4] Gurwinder Singh and others Professor (Dr.) Karamjeet Singh, Vice Chancel Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar and another [204-5] Tajinderjit and others Karamjit Singh and another [204-6] SubhashChander and Prof. Karanjeet Singh Kahlon and another 2024 and connected matters 7 cases +206-2 cases] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP-3882 Date of Decision : 26.05.2026 Parveen Kumar and others versus Professor (Dr.) Jaspal Singh Sandhu and another COCP-3547 Amarjit Singh and others versus Professor (Dr.) Jaspal Singh Sandhu and another COCP-3894 Raj Kumar and others versus Professor (Dr.) Jaspal Singh Sandhu and another COCP-853 Gurwinder Singh and others versus Professor (Dr.) Karamjeet Singh, Vice Chancel Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar and another COCP-1785 Tajinderjit and others versus Karamjit Singh and another COCP-1759 SubhashChander and others versus Prof. Karanjeet Singh Kahlon and another IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 3882-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision : 26.05.2026 …Petitioners Professor (Dr.) Jaspal Singh Sandhu and another ….Respondents 3547-2024 (O&M) …Petitioners Professor (Dr.) Jaspal Singh Sandhu and another ….Respondents 3894-2024 (O&M) …Petitioners Professor (Dr.) Jaspal Singh Sandhu and another ….Respondents 853-2025 (O&M) …Petitioners Professor (Dr.) Karamjeet Singh, Vice Chancellor, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar and another ….Respondents 1785-2025 (O&M) …Petitioners ….Respondents 1759-2025 (O&M) …Petitioners Prof. Karanjeet Singh Kahlon and another ….Respondents 1 RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.05.27 18:14 I agree to specified portions of this document COCP-3882-2024 [204-7] Kulwant Singh and others Jaspal Singh Sandhu and [206-1] Kuldip Singh and another Karamjit Singh and another [206-2] Parveen Kumar and others Prof. Karamjit Singh and another Coram : Present: PANKAJ JAIN [1] ‘Whether Writ Court or not? [2] 2024 and connected matters CM-21527 CM-21528 CM-20089 COCP-4024 Kulwant Singh and others versus Jaspal Singh Sandhu and another COCP-1782 Kuldip Singh and another versus Karamjit Singh and another COCP-1958 Parveen Kumar and others versus Karamjit Singh and another HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Mr. Puneet Jindal, Senior Advocate Ms.Malvi Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners in COCP-3882-2024, COCP- COCP-4024-2024, COCP-1785 COCP-1782-2025 &COCP-1958 Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate in COCP-853-2025. Mr. M.K. Dogra, Advocate for the respondents. **** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) The issue involved in the present contempt petitions is as to hether the respondents have willfully disobeyed the orders passed by the Writ Court or not?’ The petitioners are employees working with the GNDU. 21527-CII-2025 21528-CII-2025 20089-CII-2024 in 4024-2024 …Petitioners ….Respondents 1782-2025 (O&M) …Petitioners ….Respondents 1958-2025 (O&M) …Petitioners ….Respondents PANKAJ JAIN Mr. Puneet Jindal, Senior Advocate with Ms.Malvi Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners -3547-2024 CM-21528-CII-2025, 1785-2025, COCP-1759-2025, 1958-2025. Advocate for the petitioners for the respondents. in the present contempt petitions is as to respondents have willfully disobeyed the orders passed by the etitioners are employees working with the GNDU. 2 2025, in the present contempt petitions is as to respondents have willfully disobeyed the orders passed by the etitioners are employees working with the GNDU. A RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.05.27 18:14 I agree to specified portions of this document COCP-3882-2024 bunch of writ petitions for equal work. Supreme Court (1) SCC 148 2024 and connected matters unch of writ petitions was filed wherein the petitioner for equal work. The Writ Court relying upon the ratio of law laid down by Supreme Court in ‘State of Punjab versus (1) SCC 148, allowed the writ petitions, observing as under: “3. Learned Senior counsel as also the other learned counsel, in the same breath, submit that the petitioners have been serving the respondent-University in different capacities for more than 10 years and are thus entitled to minimum of pay scale including DA, etc. and regularization, their cases being squarely covered by the judgments in State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh, followed by this Court in Amrish Sharma and others vs. State of Punjab and others, CWP-19238 Avtar Singh and others vs. Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar through its Registrar, CWP-12892 4. The relevant portion of Amrish Sharma “35. In the case in hand, the respondent in 2006 framed regularization policy which was followed by 2011 Policy. As per Policy of 2006 read with policy of 2011, an employee who has completed service of 10 years by the end of December’ 2006 is eligible for regular appointment. All the petitioners are Class ‘D’ employees. Few petitioners, as confirmed in different affidavits, during the pendency of litigation have been regularized and remaining have not been regularized due to lack of permanent/sanctioned pasts. T framed another policy whereby dying cadre has been created. There was no minimum qualification at the time of their appointment. They without interruption are working for decades. They are assigned duties of Class IV. Courts repeatedly have held that long experience is as good as minimum qualification especially when an employee is effectively discharging his duties. Thus, it would not be justified, on the ground of minimum qualification, to deny benefit of regularization to an employee who is working for decades and is assigned duties of class IV i.e. lowest rung. xx xx 40. From the conjoint reading of judgments of Supreme filed wherein the petitioners sought equal pay elying upon the ratio of law laid down by versus Jagjit Singh’, reported as 2017 , allowed the writ petitions, observing as under:- Learned Senior counsel as also the other learned counsel, in the same breath, submit that the petitioners have been serving the University in different capacities for more than 10 years and are thus entitled to minimum of pay scale including DA, grade pay, etc. and regularization, their cases being squarely covered by the State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh, 2017 (1) SCC 148, Amrish Sharma and others vs. State of 19238-2013, decided on 26.02.2024 and Avtar Singh and others vs. Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar 12892-1996, decided on 01.12.2023. Amrish Sharma (supra), reads thus:- In the case in hand, the respondent in 2006 framed regularization policy which was followed by 2011 Policy. As per Policy of 2006 read with policy of 2011, an employee who has completed service of 10 years by the end of December’ 2006 is ar appointment. All the petitioners are Class ‘D’ employees. Few petitioners, as confirmed in different affidavits, during the pendency of litigation have been regularized and remaining have not been regularized due to lack of permanent/sanctioned pasts. The respondent in 2023 has framed another policy whereby dying cadre has been created. There was no minimum qualification at the time of their appointment. They without interruption are working for decades. They are assigned duties of Class IV. Courts tedly have held that long experience is as good as minimum qualification especially when an employee is effectively discharging his duties. Thus, it would not be justified, on the ground of minimum qualification, to deny benefit of loyee who is working for decades and is assigned duties of class IV i.e. lowest rung. xx From the conjoint reading of judgments of Supreme 3 equal pay elying upon the ratio of law laid down by reported as 2017 Learned Senior counsel as also the other learned counsel, in the same breath, submit that the petitioners have been serving the University in different capacities for more than 10 years grade pay, etc. and regularization, their cases being squarely covered by the 2017 (1) SCC 148, Amrish Sharma and others vs. State of .02.2024 and Avtar Singh and others vs. Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar In the case in hand, the respondent in 2006 framed regularization policy which was followed by 2011 Policy. As per Policy of 2006 read with policy of 2011, an employee who has completed service of 10 years by the end of December’ 2006 is ar appointment. All the petitioners are Class ‘D’ employees. Few petitioners, as confirmed in different affidavits, during the pendency of litigation have been regularized and remaining have not been regularized due to he respondent in 2023 has framed another policy whereby dying cadre has been created. There was no minimum qualification at the time of their appointment. They without interruption are working for decades. They are assigned duties of Class IV. Courts tedly have held that long experience is as good as minimum qualification especially when an employee is effectively discharging his duties. Thus, it would not be justified, on the ground of minimum qualification, to deny benefit of loyee who is working for decades and is From the conjoint reading of judgments of Supreme RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.05.27 18:14 I agree to specified portions of this document COCP-3882-2024 2024 and connected matters Court in Jagjit Singh (supra), Bahadur Singh (supra), Uma Devi (supra) and Ilmo Devi (supra), it can be culled out that part time employees who are working for few hours cannot claim pay parity. Daily wage workers who work at par with regular employees though cannot claim pay parity with regular employees yet are entitled to minimum pay. The minimum pay includes dearness allowance and grade pay. The petitioners herein are working for last 30 timer whereas they are daily wager regular employees which is more evident from the fact that few of their colleagues have already been absorbed against sanctioned posts. The majority of the petitioners are not absorbed due to non-availability of sanctioned/regular post they had not completed service of 10 years at the time of introduction of 2006 Policy. The petitioners who despite having rendered a quite long service, may be more than 30 years, if not regularized, deserve at least minimum pay which includes minimum of pay scale plus dearness allowance and grade pay. Accordingly, it is concluded that Respondent pay minimum of pay scale plus dearness allowance and grade pay to all those petitioners who neither have been/are regularized nor are part timer. 41. The respondent in its reply and during the course of arguments has pleaded that petitioners are paid monthly lump sum amount which is more than rate prescribed by Deputy Commissioner and minimum of pay scale available to regular employees. The dichotomy between figure of State and Petitioners has erupted due to non allowance and grade pay. The State in view of above referred judgments is bound to add DA and GP while calculating minimum of pay scale. 42. Keeping in mind fin binding precedents, rights of petitioners as well as equity, this Court hereby holds and gives its imprimatur to the State to pay minimum of pay scale plus dearness allowance and grade pay to all those employees who are no service of 10 years. xx xx Court in Jagjit Singh (supra), Bahadur Singh (supra), Uma Devi (supra) and Ilmo Devi (supra), it can be culled out that part time employees who are working for few hours cannot claim pay parity. Daily wage workers who work at par with regular ugh cannot claim pay parity with regular employees yet are entitled to minimum pay. The minimum pay includes dearness allowance and grade pay. The petitioners herein are working for last 30-40 years and they are not part timer whereas they are daily wager and work at par with regular employees which is more evident from the fact that few of their colleagues have already been absorbed against sanctioned posts. The majority of the petitioners are not availability of sanctioned/regular posts or they had not completed service of 10 years at the time of introduction of 2006 Policy. The petitioners who despite having rendered a quite long service, may be more than 30 years, if not regularized, deserve at least minimum pay which includes of pay scale plus dearness allowance and grade pay. Accordingly, it is concluded that Respondent-State is liable to pay minimum of pay scale plus dearness allowance and grade pay to all those petitioners who neither have been/are timer. The respondent in its reply and during the course of arguments has pleaded that petitioners are paid monthly lump sum amount which is more than rate prescribed by Deputy Commissioner and minimum of pay scale available to regular dichotomy between figure of State and Petitioners has erupted due to non-inclusion of dearness allowance and grade pay. The State in view of above referred judgments is bound to add DA and GP while calculating Keeping in mind financial burden on State exchequer, binding precedents, rights of petitioners as well as equity, this Court hereby holds and gives its imprimatur to the State to pay minimum of pay scale plus dearness allowance and grade pay to all those employees who are not part timers and have completed xx 4 Court in Jagjit Singh (supra), Bahadur Singh (supra), Uma Devi (supra) and Ilmo Devi (supra), it can be culled out that part time employees who are working for few hours cannot claim pay parity. Daily wage workers who work at par with regular ugh cannot claim pay parity with regular employees yet are entitled to minimum pay. The minimum pay includes dearness allowance and grade pay. The petitioners 40 years and they are not part and work at par with regular employees which is more evident from the fact that few of their colleagues have already been absorbed against sanctioned posts. The majority of the petitioners are not s or they had not completed service of 10 years at the time of introduction of 2006 Policy. The petitioners who despite having rendered a quite long service, may be more than 30 years, if not regularized, deserve at least minimum pay which includes of pay scale plus dearness allowance and grade pay. State is liable to pay minimum of pay scale plus dearness allowance and grade pay to all those petitioners who neither have been/are The respondent in its reply and during the course of arguments has pleaded that petitioners are paid monthly lump sum amount which is more than rate prescribed by Deputy Commissioner and minimum of pay scale available to regular dichotomy between figure of State and inclusion of dearness allowance and grade pay. The State in view of above referred judgments is bound to add DA and GP while calculating ancial burden on State exchequer, binding precedents, rights of petitioners as well as equity, this Court hereby holds and gives its imprimatur to the State to pay minimum of pay scale plus dearness allowance and grade pay to t part timers and have completed RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.05.27 18:14 I agree to specified portions of this document COCP-3882-2024 2024 and connected matters Conclusion: 47. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court comes to conclusion as below: i) This Court in the normal course cannot ask State to create or sanction posts. ii) The petitioners who had completed service of 10 years by the end of December’ 2006, either at present are in service or have already retired, are entitled to regular post and they cannot be denied regularization on the ground of lack of sanctioned post or minimum education qualification. To avoid burden on State exchequer, it is clarified that from the deemed date of their regularization, they shall be entitled to minimum of pay scale plus dearness allowance and grade pay till the date of this order and thereafter regular pay scale. iii) The petitioners who are still in service but did not complete service of 10 years by the end of December’ 2006 would form part of dying cadre created by 2023 Policy. The State, in view of long service of these employee insist for minimum qualification. They from the date of completing service of 10 years would be entitled to minimum of pay scale plus dearness allowance plus grade pay till the date they are regularized in terms of 2023 Policy. iv) The petitioners who did not complete service of 10 years by the end of December’ 2006 and during the pendency of present litigation have superannuated or passed away would be entitled to minimum of pay scale plus dearness allowance and grade pay from the date of com date of their retirement or death. v) The petitioners who have already been regularized by 31.12.2016 shall not be entitled to any additional financial benefit because they are already getting higher amount of salary for last couple of years. vi) The respondent-State shall not be liable to pay interest on arrears arising on account of re 5. The operative portion of Avtar Singh and others(supra) reads thus: “4. In view of above, since admittedly t 6 have been working with the respondent than 10 years on daily wage basis and were therefore entitled to In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court comes to conclusion as below: This Court in the normal course cannot ask State to The petitioners who had completed service of 10 years by the end of December’ 2006, either at present are in service or have already retired, are entitled to regular post and they cannot be denied regularization on the ground of lack of t or minimum education qualification. To avoid burden on State exchequer, it is clarified that from the deemed date of their regularization, they shall be entitled to minimum of pay scale plus dearness allowance and grade pay till the date of d thereafter regular pay scale. The petitioners who are still in service but did not complete service of 10 years by the end of December’ 2006 would form part of dying cadre created by 2023 Policy. The State, in view of long service of these employees, would not insist for minimum qualification. They from the date of completing service of 10 years would be entitled to minimum of pay scale plus dearness allowance plus grade pay till the date they are regularized in terms of 2023 Policy. oners who did not complete service of 10 years by the end of December’ 2006 and during the pendency of present litigation have superannuated or passed away would be entitled to minimum of pay scale plus dearness allowance and grade pay from the date of completing service of 10 years till the date of their retirement or death. The petitioners who have already been regularized by 31.12.2016 shall not be entitled to any additional financial benefit because they are already getting higher amount of salary State shall not be liable to pay interest on arrears arising on account of re-fixation of pay.” 5. The operative portion of Avtar Singh and others(supra) reads thus:- In view of above, since admittedly the petitioners No.2 to 6 have been working with the respondent-University for more than 10 years on daily wage basis and were therefore entitled to 5 In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court This Court in the normal course cannot ask State to The petitioners who had completed service of 10 years by the end of December’ 2006, either at present are in service or have already retired, are entitled to regular post and they cannot be denied regularization on the ground of lack of t or minimum education qualification. To avoid burden on State exchequer, it is clarified that from the deemed date of their regularization, they shall be entitled to minimum of pay scale plus dearness allowance and grade pay till the date of The petitioners who are still in service but did not complete service of 10 years by the end of December’ 2006 would form part of dying cadre created by 2023 Policy. The s, would not insist for minimum qualification. They from the date of completing service of 10 years would be entitled to minimum of pay scale plus dearness allowance plus grade pay till the date oners who did not complete service of 10 years by the end of December’ 2006 and during the pendency of present litigation have superannuated or passed away would be entitled to minimum of pay scale plus dearness allowance and pleting service of 10 years till the The petitioners who have already been regularized by 31.12.2016 shall not be entitled to any additional financial benefit because they are already getting higher amount of salary State shall not be liable to pay interest he petitioners No.2 to University for more than 10 years on daily wage basis and were therefore entitled to RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.05.27 18:14 I agree to specified portions of this document COCP-3882-2024 [3] with the order and for minimum pay scale only after having work vide Order dated 25.03.2025 observe misinterpreting the order of service for claiming minimum of pay scale, observing as under: 2024 and connected matters be regularized, the respondents have not denied the date of appointment of the petitioners as mentioned by t the Writ Petition. Having been appointed in the years 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993, this Court is of the view that the representation made by petitioners (Annexure P examined in light of the judgment in the case of Uma Devi and Others (Supra) and all the persons who have been working for 10 years or more shall be regularized in the aforesaid terms and shall also be paid the regular pay scale. Arrears shall also be calculated and paid to them.” 6. All learned counsel, on instructions candidly state that the arrears to the petitioners be paid only from 20.03.2017, the date on which the Syndicate of Guru Nanak Dev University took a decision to accept the judgment in Jagjit Singh (supra) and adopt Pun Contractual, Daily Wages, Temporary, Work Charged and Outsourced Employees Welfare Act 2016. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the University as also for State, have been unable to controvert the factual position and draw out any distinctive aspects in the aforementioned judgment or cite any contrary law. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petitions are disposed of in terms of Amrish Sharma and paid as per the statement made by the petitioners. Despite the aforesaid directions, t order and introduced a condition that the employee shall be eligible for minimum pay scale only after having work vide Order dated 25.03.2025 observe misinterpreting the order, as there is no condition of completion of 10 years of service for claiming minimum of pay scale, observing as under: “4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as Mr. K.S.Kahlon, Registrar, G.N.D.U, who joined the proceedings through video conferencing. 5. It is apparent that an effort is being made to misinterpret the order passed by the Writ Court as well a be regularized, the respondents have not denied the date of appointment of the petitioners as mentioned by them in para 2 of the Writ Petition. Having been appointed in the years 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993, this Court is of the view that the representation made by petitioners (Annexure P-2) shall be examined in light of the judgment in the case of Uma Devi and hers (Supra) and all the persons who have been working for 10 years or more shall be regularized in the aforesaid terms and shall also be paid the regular pay scale. Arrears shall also be calculated and paid to them.” All learned counsel, on instructions candidly state that the arrears to the petitioners be paid only from 20.03.2017, the date on which the Syndicate of Guru Nanak Dev University took a decision to accept the judgment in Jagjit Singh (supra) and adopt Punjab Adhoc Contractual, Daily Wages, Temporary, Work Charged and Outsourced Learned counsel appearing for the University as also for State, have been unable to controvert the factual position and draw out any cts in the aforementioned judgment or cite any contrary In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petitions are disposed and Avtar Singh (supra), and arrears be paid as per the statement made by the petitioners. ” Despite the aforesaid directions, the respondents did not comply a condition that the employee shall be eligible for minimum pay scale only after having worked for 10 years. This Court vide Order dated 25.03.2025 observed that the respondents are as there is no condition of completion of 10 years of service for claiming minimum of pay scale, observing as under:- I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as Mr. K.S.Kahlon, Registrar, G.N.D.U, who joined the proceedings It is apparent that an effort is being made to misinterpret the order passed by the Writ Court as well as the settled law as recorded 6 be regularized, the respondents have not denied the date of hem in para 2 of the Writ Petition. Having been appointed in the years 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993, this Court is of the view that the 2) shall be examined in light of the judgment in the case of Uma Devi and hers (Supra) and all the persons who have been working for 10 years or more shall be regularized in the aforesaid terms and shall also be paid the regular pay scale. Arrears shall also be All learned counsel, on instructions candidly state that the arrears to the petitioners be paid only from 20.03.2017, the date on which the Syndicate of Guru Nanak Dev University took a decision to jab Adhoc Contractual, Daily Wages, Temporary, Work Charged and Outsourced Learned counsel appearing for the University as also for State, have been unable to controvert the factual position and draw out any cts in the aforementioned judgment or cite any contrary In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petitions are disposed (supra), and arrears be he respondents did not comply a condition that the employee shall be eligible for 10 years. This Court d that the respondents are as there is no condition of completion of 10 years I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as Mr. K.S.Kahlon, Registrar, G.N.D.U, who joined the proceedings It is apparent that an effort is being made to misinterpret the s the settled law as recorded RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.05.27 18:14 I agree to specified portions of this document COCP-3882-2024 [4] wherein the respondents again reite years service and passed speaking orders to the same effect interregnum [5] Chancellor [6] of willfully disobey held guilty [7] simple imprisonment for the sentence shall remain suspended till 07.07.2027 to enable the respondents to prefer appeal. 2024 and connected matters in the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh, 2017 (1) of completion of 10 years of service for making an individual eligible for minimum of pay scale respondents are depriving the petitioners of their entitlement under the order passed by the Writ Court by circumventing its operation and intent. 6. In such circumstances, charges are ordered to be framed against the Registrar, GNDU in terms of Sections 10 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for having shown willful neglect towards the intent and meaning of the order dated 23.04.2024, passed by the Writ Court. The learned Registrar, GNDU may file his response on or before the next date of hearing and shall remain present in Court or join further proceedings through video conferencing. 7. Adjourned to 08.04.2025. Pursuant thereto, affidavit has been filed by the respondents wherein the respondents again reiterated their stand and insisted upon 10 years service and passed speaking orders to the same effect rregnum, a CACP was also preferred, Today, the respondents, namely Karamjeet Singh, V Chancellor and Karamjit Singh Chahal, Registrar, Keeping in view their incorrigible of willfully disobeying the orders passed by this Court held guilty of committing contempt of Court. Accordingly, both the respondents are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month. entence shall remain suspended till 07.07.2027 to enable the respondents to prefer appeal. in the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh, 2017 (1) SCC 148, where no such condition of completion of 10 years of service for making an individual eligible for minimum of pay scale has been prescribed. In fact the respondents are depriving the petitioners of their entitlement under the order passed by the Writ Court by circumventing its operation In such circumstances, charges are ordered to be framed strar, GNDU in terms of Sections 10 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for having shown willful neglect towards the intent and meaning of the order dated 23.04.2024, passed by the Writ Court. The learned Registrar, GNDU may file his fore the next date of hearing and shall remain present in Court or join further proceedings through video Adjourned to 08.04.2025. ” Pursuant thereto, affidavit has been filed by the respondents rated their stand and insisted upon 10 years service and passed speaking orders to the same effect. In which was however withdrawn. , namely Karamjeet Singh, V and Karamjit Singh Chahal, Registrar, are present in person. incorrigible attitude, they are held guilty orders passed by this Court and consequently are contempt of Court. oth the respondents are sentenced to undergo one month. However, the operation of entence shall remain suspended till 07.07.2027 to enable the 7 State of , where no such condition of completion of 10 years of service for making an individual eligible has been prescribed. In fact the respondents are depriving the petitioners of their entitlement under the order passed by the Writ Court by circumventing its operation In such circumstances, charges are ordered to be framed strar, GNDU in terms of Sections 10 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for having shown willful neglect towards the intent and meaning of the order dated 23.04.2024, passed by the Writ Court. The learned Registrar, GNDU may file his fore the next date of hearing and shall remain present in Court or join further proceedings through video Pursuant thereto, affidavit has been filed by the respondents rated their stand and insisted upon 10 the , namely Karamjeet Singh, Vice attitude, they are held guilty consequently are oth the respondents are sentenced to undergo However, the operation of entence shall remain suspended till 07.07.2027 to enable the RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.05.27 18:14 I agree to specified portions of this document COCP-3882-2024 [8] [9] disposed off [10] 26.05.2026 ‘R. Sharma' 2024 and connected matters All the contempt petitions stand All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, disposed off. Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case 26.05.2026 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable t petitions stand disposed off. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand this order be placed on the file of connected case (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No 8 stand this order be placed on the file of connected cases. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.05.27 18:14 I agree to specified portions of this document