- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3832-DB WP No. 100833 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT PETITION NO.100833 OF 2025 (S-CAT) BETWEEN: RAJA K. HATAGAR, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC.: ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, O/O SUB REGIONAL OFFICE-ESIC, HUBLI-580025, RESIDING AT NO.187, 3RD MAIN, RAVI NAGARA, GOKUL ROAD, TQ. HUBLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580030. - PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVA SHIRUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA R/BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAVAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI-110001. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL, HQ, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, CIG MARG, NEW DELHI-110002. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR (IN-CHARGE) SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, ESIC NO.89, SATAGATTI ROAD, NAVANAGAR, HUBLI-580025. 4. REGIONAL DIRECTOR ESIC, KARNATAKA, NO.10, BINNY FIELDS, BINNY PET,BANGALORE-560023. - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.B. KANAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4) Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3832-DB WP No. 100833 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE TO CONSIDER AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER ON THE INTERIM PRAYER AS SOUGHT BY THE PETITIONER IN O.A. NO.25/2025 DATED 13.01.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-B & ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) The petitioner has entered service with the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation in 2007. He is promoted as an Assistant Director on 23.12.2020. There is some dispute about his promotion, but that may not be germane for the present. The petitioner has called in question the second respondent’s decision to invoke Rule 56J of Fundamental Rules made applicable to ESI Corporation under the relevant regulations. The second respondent has given notice to the petitioner stating that he shall prematurely retire on the Forenoon of 27.02.2025 in the public interest. The petitioner has called in question this decision in his application in A - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3832-DB WP No. 100833 of 2025 No. 25/2025 with the Central Administrative Tribunal [for short, ‘the CAT’]. The petitioner has sought for interim order, but the Tribunal has issued notice to respondent returnable by 17.02.2025. The petitioner is aggrieved by this order. 2. Sri Shiva Shirur, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Court must intervene and ensure that the petitioner is not compelled to prematurely retire in terms of the second respondent’s order dated 27.11.2024 because [a] the impugned order is issued in violation of the principles of natural justice, [b] the petitioner, who has been promoted on 23.12.2020 as Assistant Director, has completed more than four years in such post without any blemish as is seen by the different ACRs produced, [c] Rule 56 could not have been invoked when the petitioner’s promotion as an Assistant Director is also approved on completion of initial period. 3. Sri M.B. Kanavi, the learned senior standing counsel for the respondents, submits that it is settled that when Rule 56J of the Fundamental Rules is - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3832-DB WP No. 100833 of 2025 invoked, there need not be compliance with principles of natural justice as has been held by the Apex Court in Baikuntha Nath Das and Anr. Vs. Chief Distt. Medical Officer, Baripada1 way back in the year 1992 and other decisions. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is promoted as an Assistant Director, but such promotion is made subject to the approval by the UPSC and the UPSC has communicated that the petitioner is unfit to be so promoted. The learned counsel further submits that the decision to invoke Rule 56J to prematurely retire the petitioner is not stigmatic or a default as is contemplated under the CCA Rules, and such decision, after the recommendations, is only to remove the inefficient and deadwood from service. 4. These rival submissions are considered to assess whether there must be interference with the Tribunal’s order, and it would suffice for this Court to observe that the entire gamut of circumstances in which the second respondent has invoked power under Rule 56J of the 1 1992 AIR 1020 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3832-DB WP No. 100833 of 2025 Fundamental Rules will be examined by the Tribunal once the pleadings are completed. If indeed the petitioner can demonstrate that the decision to invoke jurisdiction and prematurely retire is impermissible or illegal, the Tribunal can always mould the relief to ensure that the petitioner’s interests are protected in the light of such conclusion. As such, this Court must opine that there is no occasion for interference. This Court must also request the Tribunal to consider expeditious disposal of the application. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, and in view of disposal of the writ petition, all pending applications also stand disposed of. Sd/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE BVV, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 41