A senior professor of Government Medical College and Hospital (GMCH), Patiala, has moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court by filing a contempt of court petition against the Punjab government, challenging his retirement order. The petitioner alleged that the state ignored an earlier High Court order that protected his service and attempted to retire him at the age of 58 despite a subsisting stay.
High Court Takes Urgent Cognisance
The matter was taken up urgently during the winter vacation by Justice Amarjot Bhatti. After a preliminary hearing, the court issued a notice of motion in the contempt petition, observing that the allegations required judicial examination. The court found a prima facie case warranting further consideration.
Allegation of Wilful Disobedience
The petitioner, Dr Sanjiv Pal Singh, a senior professor in the post-partum (family welfare) unit at GMCH Patiala, has challenged the retirement order dated December 31, 2025, issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Education and Research, Punjab. Through his counsel, advocate Mohit Garg, Dr Singh contended that the order amounted to wilful disobedience of a High Court directive passed on December 16, 2021, which had stayed his retirement at 58 years and ordered the state to maintain status quo until final disposal of his writ petition.
State Seeks Time to Respond
During the hearing, the Additional Advocate General (AAG), Punjab, appeared on advance notice and accepted summons on behalf of the state government. The court granted time to the state to file its reply and adjourned the matter to February 9, 2026, reports TOI.
Repeated Attempts to Retire Professor
Dr Singh also informed the court that this was the second attempt by the department to retire him despite judicial protection. A similar retirement move in December 2021 had been stayed by the High Court, which had even issued a show-cause notice to the then principal secretary for alleged interference with the judicial process. He submitted that the earlier show-cause notice remains pending and that the fresh retirement order constitutes a repeated violation of the court’s continuing stay.
