Ramgovind Institute of Technology, a society established under the byelaws of Ramgovind v. The State of Jharkhand

(f) During the pendency of the writ petition not to allow concerned respondent authorities to recover any further sum of from the bank account from which Rs.18 Lakhs and odd have already been recovered”.

Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents.

The ground taken by the petitioner – Institute in this writ petition for grant of the aforesaid reliefs is that the impugned notice was served upon “Viplav Jamindar”, who was the Principal of Ramgovind Institute of Technology (RIT), Koderma, Jharkhand, whereas “Viplav Jamindar” has resigned much prior to receipt of the said notice, thus it can be said that the impugned order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner – Institute.

Learned counsel representing the respondent – Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), submits that the order impugned was initially appealable under Section 45 AA of the Employees’ State Insurance (ESI) Act, but since the statutory time period for filing the appeal is over now, the remedy available to the petitioner is by invoking Section 75 of the ESI Act. He further submits that though the notice was addressed to the Viplav Jamindar, who was the Principal, but it was through the Institute and has been sent to the office of the Institute, which was duly 3 received. He submits that since it was sent to the official address and in the official capacity, even if the said Viplav Jamindar, has resigned from the service, it was the duty of the RIT, Koderma, to address the issue which was highlighted in the notice and take appropriate steps.

After hearing the parties, I find that the notice was issued in the name of the “Viplav Jamindar”, with the address of RIT, Koderma. There are two dispatch numbers i.e. 1656 and 1657, both dated 30.07.2015. This also suggests that two copies of the notice were sent. Once the notice was sent to the Principal, even if it was with a particular name, it was incumbent upon the Institute to take appropriate action. It is not in dispute that earlier this Institute i.e. RIT, Koderma, became a Member under the ESI Act and thereafter subsequently complied with the provisions of the said Act.

Be that as it may, since there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner by taking recourse of Section 75 of the ESI Act, I direct the petitioner to approach the Authority under Section 75 of the ESI Act and take all the pleas which are argued in this case. Once the petitioner appears, the case will be considered on merits and an appropriate order be passed, without being prejudiced by the order passed in this writ petition.

With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. 22nd July, 2026 Prashant. Cp-2 Uploaded on 28.07.2026 4

(ANANDA SEN, J.)