JUDGMENT K. N. Singh, J. - This petition is directed against the order of the State Government dated 29-9-1973 giving three months' notice to the petitioner for his compulsory retirement under Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules. 2. The petitioner joined Government service as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon in 1938. He was subsequently promoted, and on the date of the issue of the impugned notice he was working as District Livestock Officer at Jalaun. The petitioner attained the age of 55 years on 12-7-1972, while he was posted as Artificial Insemination Officer at Bareily. The State Government permitted the petitioner to continue in service beyond the age of 55 years. But by the impugned notice dated 29-9-1973 the petitioner v/as directed to retire compulsorily from service on the expiry of three months from the date of the service of the notice. The petitioner has challenged that order of the State Government in the present petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the impugned order was passed arbitrarily without any reasonable ground. He urged that the petitioner could not be retired compulsorily before the age of 58 years as he had been allowed to continue in service beyond the age of 55 years. 4. Under Fundamental Rule 56 as amended from time to time, a Government servant has right to continue in service till the age of 58 years but the Government is empowered to review the case of a Government servant at the stage when he attains the age of 55 years. If on a review of the work and conduct the State Government or the appointing authority is satisfied that the Government servant is fit enough to continue in service till the age of 58 years, it may permit the Government servant to continue in service. But in case where the State Government is not satisfied with the work and conduct of the Government servant, it is free to retire the Government servant compulsorily by giving him three months' notice or pay in lieu of notice, in public interest. The factors which are required to be taken into account in considering the question of compulsory retirement of a Government servant in public interest, have been laid down in the Government order dated 26-11-1969 filed as Annexure A-6 to the petition. The factors which are required to be taken into account in considering the question of compulsory retirement of a Government servant in public interest, have been laid down in the Government order dated 26-11-1969 filed as Annexure A-6 to the petition. The conditions laid down in that Government Order are statutory as the same have been, issued under the statutory requirement of Explanation to Fundamental Rule 56. Clause (1) to the Government Order dated 26-11-1969 requires that the case of every Government servant before he attains the age of 55 years should be considered at least six months prior to that and a decision should be taken as to whether he is to be retained in service or he is to be retired compulsorily. But in a case where no such decision is taken, no right is conferred on the Government servant to 'continue in service till the age of 58 years. Clauses (3), (4) and (5) lay down other conditions which require that if the integrity certificate of the Government servant is withheld even for once during the last 10 years of service then the Government servant should not be retained in service and further if the work and conduct of the Government servant has not been above average during the last ten years of his service, his retention in Government service will not be in public interest. Clause (6) of the Government order further lays down that ordinarily the cases of those Government servants who are allowed to continue in service after 55 years after review of their work and conduct should riot be reviewed again before attaining the age of 58 years unless it is found that after their retention in service beyond the age of 55 years their conduct and work deteriorated so as to retain them in public interest. 5. In the instant case the petitioner attained the age of 55 years on 12-7-1972. He was not compulsorily retired, instead he was permitted to continue in service. Further on 1-8-1973 he was promoted to the post of District Livestock Officer. But within two months of his promotion the impugned order was issued directing him to retire compulsorily from service. 5. In the instant case the petitioner attained the age of 55 years on 12-7-1972. He was not compulsorily retired, instead he was permitted to continue in service. Further on 1-8-1973 he was promoted to the post of District Livestock Officer. But within two months of his promotion the impugned order was issued directing him to retire compulsorily from service. It is thus clear that the petitioner had been allowed to continue in service and he was promoted even thereafter to a higher post, therefore, the order in question could not be passed unless the conditions laid down in paragraph 6 of the Government Order dated 26-11-1969 existed. There is no averment in the counter affidavit that after the petitioner was permitted to continue in service his work or conduct deteriorated or that there was any complaint against him justifying his retirement. In these circumstances the impugned order of retirement was passed in violation of clause 6 of the Government Order. The learned Standing counsel, however, urged that no decision had been taken by the Government to permit the petitioner to continue in service beyond the age of 55 years. The impugned order was issued only when his service record was considered and it was found that his work and conduct for the last ten years of his service was not above average, it is true that if a Government servant is permitted to continue in service beyond 55 years, his right to continue in service till he attains the age of 58 years is not absolute. The Government has power to review his case and to retire him compulsorily if it finds defect in his work and conduct even after his retention in service beyond the age of 55 years. In the instant case in paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit it has clearly been stated that the Government in the light of the Government order dated 26-11-1969 allowed the petitioner to serve the Government beyond the age of 55 years. In view of this statement it is clear that the petitioner's case was considered and he was permitted to continue beyond the age of 55 years. If that be so, the petitioner could not be compulsorily retired before 58 years unless some defect in his work and conduct was found to justify his retirement from service. The counter affidavit does not disclose any such material against the petitioner. If that be so, the petitioner could not be compulsorily retired before 58 years unless some defect in his work and conduct was found to justify his retirement from service. The counter affidavit does not disclose any such material against the petitioner. It has, however, been asserted that the work and conduct of the petitioner during the last 10 years of his service was not above average therefore he has been retired. It is noteworthy that the petitioner was given promotion after his retention in service beyond the age of 55 years. Once the petitioner was permitted to be retained in service beyond line age of 55 years service record of the last ten years service could not again be considered to retire him. As already observed, clause 6 of the Government Order contemplates that there should be deterioration in the work and conduct of the. Government servant after he is retained in service, to justify his retirement. There is no material to show that petitioner's work and conduct deteriorated during his period of retention in. service. The impugned order therefore could not legally be issued. 6. In the result the petition is allowed. The order of the State Government dated 29-9-1973 is quashed. The petitioner is entitled to his costs.