R. P. SETHI, C. J. ( 1 ) INVOKING the powers under clause (2) of Regulation 19 of the Life Insurance Corporation of india (Staff) Regulations, 1960 (hereinafter called 'the Regulations'), the Managing Director of the Respondents/corporation directed the appellant to retire from the services of the Corporation on the expiry of the period of three months from the date of receipt of the order dated 9-12-1986. The said order was challenged by the appellant in Writ Petition No. 1178 of 1987 mainly on the ground that, as the impugned order cast a stigma upon him, the same was liable to be quashed. Constitutional validity of Regulation 19 of the Regulations was also challenged. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition, vide the order impugned in this appeal, but protected the interests of the appellant insofar as the salary to be paid to him during the pendency of the writ petition on the basis of the Court order was concerned. It is submitted such order cannot be sustained unless it is preceded by a domestic enquiry in which such allegations amounting to stigma are found to be in existence. In relation to employment the word 'stigma' means casting aspersions and reflections on his conduct indicating his inefficiency and the like made in the order which is likely to adversely affect the future prospects of the individual relating to employment or promotion. The impugned order only mentions that it was not conducive to the interest of the Corporation to continue the services of the appellant with the Corporation. No allegation or aspersion or reflection on his conduct in relation to his employment was mentioned. in the order of premature retirement. The impugned order cannot be termed to be casting a stigma requiring interference by this Court. The respondents/corporation had only found that it was not conducive to the interest of the Corporation to retain the appellant in service. Stigma if any was with respect to the Corporation and not related to the appellant. ( 2 ) THE learned Single Judge also considered various aspects of the matter and rightly concluded that the impugned order had not cast any stigma requiring interference of this Court that the order of the learned Single Judge on the law and facts is liable to be quashed. ( 2 ) THE learned Single Judge also considered various aspects of the matter and rightly concluded that the impugned order had not cast any stigma requiring interference of this Court that the order of the learned Single Judge on the law and facts is liable to be quashed. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has been fair to concede that there was no constitutional vice in Regulation 19 (2) of the Regulations on the ground of the alleged violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Otherwise also, the constitutional validity of the said regulation was upheld by the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India and Another v S. S. Srivastava and Others. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has, however, vehemently argued that the impugned order which amounted to casting a stigma could not be sustained and, in the absence of any domestic enquiry, the same was liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in. N. Saksena v State of Madhya pradesh. ( 5 ) THERE is no dispute with the proposition that where an order to retire an employee compulsorily is shown to be containing express words from which a stigma could be inferred, high Court can interfere with such order in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No other points were canvassed before this Court. ( 6 ) NO merit in this appeal. It is dismissed but without any order as to costs. ( 7 ) AT the conclusion of the argument, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that despite the retirement of the appellant, the appellant has not been so far paid the pensionary benefits. Learned Counsel for the respondents has assured us that the post-retirement benefits payable to the appellant under rules shall be paid without any further delay.