JUDGMENT K. N. Singh, J. - By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged validity of the order of the State Government dated 28-11-1974 retiring the petitioner compulsorily from service in the exercise of its power under Note I to Article 465-A of the Civil Service Regulations by giving him three months salary in lieu of period of notice. 2. The petitioner joined the U. P. State Police Service in May, 1947. In 1962. he was substantively appointed in the Selection Grade of State Police Service. In November, 1961, his name was included in the list prepared in accordance with the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations for appointment to the officiating post in the senior scale of Indian Police Service. He was allowed to officiate in the senior scale of Indian Police Service with effect from 16-7-1962. The petitioner's name continued to be included in the select list till 1967 and during all this time the petitioner continued to officiate in the senior scale of Indian Police Service. The petitioner's name was not included in the select list for the year 1968 prepared in accordance with regulation 5 (4) of the Indian Police Service (Appointment. by Promotion) Regulations, instead some officers junior to the petitioner were included in the select list. As the petitioner's name was rot included in the select list, he was reverted to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police in the State Cadre. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 2771 of 1968 in this Court challenging his reversion as well as the select list for 1968 prepared for promotion to the Indian Police Service. The Writ petition was allowed by this Court on 27-3-69, and the select list as well as the order reverting the petitioner to substantive post was quashed. The State of Uttar Pradesh took the matter in appeal before the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of this Court by its order dated 26-9-1973. The judgment is reported in Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor, AIR 1974 SC 87 . In pursuance of the judgment of this Court and the Supreme Court the select list for the year 1968 was prepared afresh in 1974. The petitioner's name was, however, not included in the select list. The judgment is reported in Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor, AIR 1974 SC 87 . In pursuance of the judgment of this Court and the Supreme Court the select list for the year 1968 was prepared afresh in 1974. The petitioner's name was, however, not included in the select list. But before that his name had been included in the select list prepared for the year 1970. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Superintendent of Police, Railways, a post in the special grade in the State Police Service. While the petitioner was posted as officiating Superintendent of Police, Anti-dacoity Operations, Agra, the State Government issued an order on 28th November, 1974 in exercise of its power under Note I to Article 465 of the Civil Service Regulations compulsorily retiring the petitioner on his having attained the age of more than 50 years. Aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged validity of the State Government's order. 3. During the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner continued in service under an interim order of this Court dated 24-1-1975. He had been drawing his salary and enjoying full benefits of the service, he attained the age of superannuation of 58 years and retired from service on July 1981. Whin the writ petition came up for hearing before us we directed the Standing Counsel to enquire from the State Government whether the petitioner will be treated in service during the period he remained in service under the interim order of this Court and whether he will be given the benefit of pension, gratuity, encashment of leave and other allied matters. This had to be done as an argument was advanced on behalf of the State Government that the petitioner having retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation the writ petition was rendered infructuous. On the other hand the petitioner contended that since the petitioner continued in service till his superannuation he was entitled to the full benefits even though he continued to serve under the interim order of this Court. Sri Hari Mohan Singh, Joint Secretary of the State Government in the Home Department, has filed affidavit asserting that the State Government holds the view that the service rendered by the petitioner after 28-11- 1974 cannot be taken into consideration for purposes of fixing his pension and other pensionary benefits like, leave. gratuity, encashment etc. Sri Hari Mohan Singh, Joint Secretary of the State Government in the Home Department, has filed affidavit asserting that the State Government holds the view that the service rendered by the petitioner after 28-11- 1974 cannot be taken into consideration for purposes of fixing his pension and other pensionary benefits like, leave. gratuity, encashment etc. The stand taken in the supplementary counter affidavit is that the petitioner cannot be treated in service for purposes of pensionary benefits as he had been retired compulsorily on 28-11-1974. 4. Under Article 465-A of the Civil Service Regulations retiring pension is granted to an officer who is required by the Government to retire on attaining the age of 50 years or on completing 25 years of qualifying service. Article 468 read with Articles 474 to 495 provide, for determination of the amount of pension by length of service. Gratuity, encashment of leave and other pensionary benefits are all earned by a Government officer on the basis of length of his service. Pensionary benefits are neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the Government, instead it is a vested right subject. to the rules contained in the Civil Service Regulations which are statutory in character. Pension is not an ex-gratia payment but it is a payment for the past services as not only compensation for the loyal services rendered in the past but it has a broader significance in that it is a measure of socio-economic justice when the Govt. Servant's physical and mental prowess is ebbing out. The term 'pension' judicially defined means allowance or a stipend or a surrender of rights or emoluments to one retired from service as held by the Supreme Court in D. S. Nakara v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130 . An officer retired prematurely under Article 465-A of the Civil Service Regulations is entitled to pension. An order of premature retirement under the said provision is not an order of dismissal or removal and as such his right to receive pension remains unaffected. In Shyam Lal v. State of U. P., AIR 1954 SC 369 it was held that an officer who has been compulsorily retired does not lose any part of the benefit that he has earned. On compulsory retirement he will be entitled to the pensionary benefits that he may have actually earned. In Shyam Lal v. State of U. P., AIR 1954 SC 369 it was held that an officer who has been compulsorily retired does not lose any part of the benefit that he has earned. On compulsory retirement he will be entitled to the pensionary benefits that he may have actually earned. There is no diminution of the accrued benefit. On this premise it was held that a compulsory retirement does not amount to dismissal or removal, therefore it does not attract the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution or Rule 55. 5. The petitioner is no doubt entitled to pension but what the respondents contend is that while determining the pension and other pensionary benefits they will not take into account the length of service rendered by the petitioner after 28-11-1974, the date the petitioner was prematurely retired from service on the ground that the service rendered by the petitioner thereafter was under the sufferance of this Court's interim order. The respondents' plea appears to be disingenuous. On 24-1-1975 a Division Bench of this Court while admitting the writ petition passed an interim order in the following terms: "Issue notice. Till further orders of the Court the impugned order dated 28th November, 1974, compulsorily retiring the petitioner shall not be given effect." The State filed an application before the Court for vacating the aforesaid interim order. After hearing both the parties the Court passed the following order on 5-5-1975: "Heard learned counsel for the parties. The interim order dated 24-1-1975 is confirmed with the modification that it will not be obligatory for the respondents to take work from the petitioner but respondents shall continue to pay salary and other allowances to which the petitioner may be entitled as and when due." Under the above order the State Government was not bound to take work from the petitioner or to allow the petitioner to render service to the Government. The interim order dated 24-1-75 was in absolute terms which required the respondents to allow the petitioner to render service but after its modification by the order dated 5-5-1975 the respondents were under no legal obligation to allow the petitioner to render service. The interim order dated 24-1-75 was in absolute terms which required the respondents to allow the petitioner to render service but after its modification by the order dated 5-5-1975 the respondents were under no legal obligation to allow the petitioner to render service. The State Government, however, chose to take work from the petitioner as it posted the petitioner as Officiating Superintendent of Police (Officer on Special Duty) and entrusted him with the work of revision of rules and regulations and various publications of the Police Training College, Moradabad. The petitioner continued to hold that post till he attained the age of superannuation. A perusal of the petitioner's character roll entries for the period during which he was posted at Police Training College reveals that the petitioner's work was satisfactory and overall assessment of his work was fair. 6. The course of action adopted by the State was not the direct consequence of the interim order of this Court. The respondents were granted full freedom by this Court not to take work from the petitioner but even thereafter the petitioner was required to render service which the petitioner rendered efficiently. The respondents cannot now turn round and say that the period of service rendered by the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition cannot be taken into account in determining his pension and other benefits. A party cannot avail of benefit under the Court's order and simultaneously shift the blame on the Court for the consequences which flow from the order passed so that it may be able to plead actus curiae neminem gravabil (the act of the Court shall prejudice no man), as observed by the Supreme Court in Superintendent of Taxes v. 0. N. Trust, AIR 1975 SC 2065 . For these reasons we are of the opinion that the period of service which the petitioner rendered during the pendency of the writ petition must be taken into account in determining the length of service rendered by the petitioner for the purpose of granting pension and other pecuniary benefits. Merely because the petitioner's continuance in service was in pursuance of interim order does not affect the petitioner's right to pensionary benefits. 7. Merely because the petitioner's continuance in service was in pursuance of interim order does not affect the petitioner's right to pensionary benefits. 7. In view of the findings that the length of service rendered by the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition should be taken into account in determining the petitioner's pension and other pensionary benefits it is not necessary to consider the validity of the order of compulsory retirement on merit, but as arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on the validity of the order we think it proper to consider the same. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the Government's decision to retire the petitioner prematurely was not in public interest as it took into consideration stale and old entries which had lost all relevance, those entries which had not been communicated to the petitioner at all were also taken into account. The entries of recent past were not taken into account or given emphasis, instead the stale entries of the past were taken into account. The decision of the State Government to retire the petitioner prematurely was arbitrary and on the material present before it no reasonable person could have come to the conclusion that the petitioner's premature retirement was in t public interest. 9. Note I to Article 465-A of the Civil Service Regulations confers right on the Government to retire any officer on the completion of 25 years' qualifying service in public interest. 'Public interest' in the context of public services means efficiency in public service. In Government service there is a good deal of dead wood and it is in public interest to chop off the same and for that purpose Note I to Article 465-A confers power on the Government to cut short the tenure of an officer. Before a Government Officer is required to retire prematurely the State Government must form a bona fide opinion that it is in public interest to do so. In Union of India v. J. N. Sinha, AIR 1971 SC 40 the Supreme Court observed that if the State Government bona fide forms an opinion that a Government servant should be retired in public interest, the correctness of that opinion cannot be challenged before the Court. In Union of India v. J. N. Sinha, AIR 1971 SC 40 the Supreme Court observed that if the State Government bona fide forms an opinion that a Government servant should be retired in public interest, the correctness of that opinion cannot be challenged before the Court. But it is open to the aggrieved party to contend that the requisite opinion has not been formed bona fide or the decision is based on collateral grounds or that it is an arbitrary decision. While under the rules minimum service is guaranteed to a Government servant, the Government is given power to energise its machinery and make it more efficient by compulsorily retiring those who in its opinion should not be there public interest. While considering the validity of premature retirement it is open to the High Court to peruse the record of the service of the Government servant which may have been taken into account by the Government in forming the requisite opinion to retire him prematurely. 10. In State of U. P. v. Chandra Mohan. AIR 1977 SC 2411 the Supreme Court observed that when an order of compulsory retirement is challenged as arbitrary or mala fide by making clear and specific allegations it will then be the duty of the Government to produce all the necessary material to rebut such pleas to satisfy the Court by producing such documents as will be a complete answer to the plea. In Baldevraj Chaddha v. Union of India. AIR 1981 SC 70 the Supreme Court emphasised that when an order of premature retirement is challenged the stale Government must disclose the material so that the Court may be satisfied that the order is not bad for want of any material which to a reasonable man reasonably instructed in the law is sufficient to sustain the ground of 'public interest' justifying forced retirement of the public servant. The Supreme Court struck a note of caution by observing that Judges cannot substitute their judgment for that of the State or the authority concerned but they are not absolved from minimal review well settled in administrative law and founded on constitutional obligations. The Court's jurisdiction to consider the material is confined to an examination of the material merely to see whether a rational mind may conceivably be satisfied that the compulsory retirement of the officer concerned is necessary in public interest. The Court's jurisdiction to consider the material is confined to an examination of the material merely to see whether a rational mind may conceivably be satisfied that the compulsory retirement of the officer concerned is necessary in public interest. If the order of compulsory retirement is based on irrelevant material or the vital material is ignored or that obsolete material, less relevant to the decision is found to influence the decision the order of premature retirement would be vitiated, 11. In the instant case, the petitioner has asserted that the entries for the entire past service were taken into consideration by the State Government in forming the requisite opinion that the petitioner's retirement was in public interest. Thy petitioner has further asserted that the entries of 1948-49, 1951-52, 1952-53, 1954-55, 1958-59, 1962-63, 1964-65 and 1966-67 were not communicated to the petitioner although these entries have been considered adverse in nature. This assertion is fully supported by the averments contained in paragraph 11 of the supplementary counter-affidavit filed by Prabha Kant Tewari, It is, however, asserted in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State that a Screening Committee had been constituted which considered the service record including the adverse entries of the petitioner and the Screening Committee expressed its opinion on the basis of all the entries and overall performance of the petitioner in service. The affidavits filed on behalf of the State Government concede that the aforesaid entries were not communicated to the petitioner although the same were treated to be adverse and taken into consideration while considering the petitioner's work and conduct for the purpose of premature retirement. In Gurdial Singh V. State of Punjab AIR 1979 SC 1622 the Supreme Court held that in accordance with the rules of natural justice an adverse report in a confidential note, cannot be acted upon unless it is communicated to the person concerned so that he has an opportunity of improving his work and conduct or to explain the circumstances leading to the report. Such an opportunity is not an empty formality, its object partially being to enable the superior authority to decide on a consideration of the explanation offered by the person concerned whether the adverse report is justified. The observations made by the Supreme Court are fully applicable to the case of premature retirement. Such an opportunity is not an empty formality, its object partially being to enable the superior authority to decide on a consideration of the explanation offered by the person concerned whether the adverse report is justified. The observations made by the Supreme Court are fully applicable to the case of premature retirement. As the adverse entries were not communicated to the petitioner he was denied opportunity of representation and no one had decided whether the adverse entries were justified. 12. Placing reliance on the Supreme Court decision in Union of India v. M. E. Reddy, AIR 1980 SC 563 learned Standing Counsel urged that the non-communication of the entries will not render the order invalid. We do not understand the Supreme Court to have laid such a broad proposition in the above mentioned decision. In that case the submission made for the respondent was that the order was passed on materials which were non-existent inasmuch as there were no adverse remarks against the respondent who had a spotless career throughout and if such remarks would have been made in his confidential reports they should have been communicated to him under the rules. In rejecting this argument, the Supreme Court observed that under the rules on the subject every adverse entry or remarks was not necessary to be communicated to the officer concerned. Some of the remarks may be purely innocuous, or may be connected with general reputation of honesty or integrity that a particular officer enjoys. The observations of Hidayatullah C. J. in R. L. Butail v. Union of India (1970) 2 SCC 876 , were cited in support of the proposition that confidential reports are not ordinarily to contain specific incidents upon which assessments are made. The entries relating to Reddy, it was further observed indicated that his integrity was not above board. The decision in Reddy's case (1980 Lab IC 221) (SC) (supra) does not, therefore, lay down that non-communication of entries to the concerned officer is of no consequence in all situations irrespective of the nature and contents of the entries and the relevant rules relating to the communication thereof. In Reddy's case the Supreme Court observed that if an officer has doubtful integrity he stands in a different class. In that case there was an adverse entry doubting his integrity and on that basis the Supreme Court upheld the order of compulsory retirement. In Reddy's case the Supreme Court observed that if an officer has doubtful integrity he stands in a different class. In that case there was an adverse entry doubting his integrity and on that basis the Supreme Court upheld the order of compulsory retirement. as an officer of doubtful integrity stands in a different category and his retention in service was certainly not in public interest. In the background of this special circumstance the Supreme Court observed that non-communication of such an entry was not fatal to the order. 13. In a subsequent decision in Brij Behari Lal v. High Court of M. P.. AIR 1981 SC 594 Reddy's case (1980 Lab IC 221) (SC) was also referred to. The Supreme Court struck down the order of compulsory retirement on the ground that an adverse entry which had not been communicated to the petitioner was taken into account after considering Reddy's case. The Supreme Court emphasised that it is necessary to communicate the adverse entries made in confidential reports of the Government servant concerned. We are, therefore. of the opinion that Reddy's case does not affect the legal position that if a number of uncommunicated adverse entries are taken into account in forming the requisite opinion to retire a Government servant in public interest, the order would be vitiated. 14. The adverse entries for the year, 1948-49, 1951-52, 1952-53, 1954-55, 1958-59, 1962-63, 1964-65 and 1966-67 had lost their effect as the petitioner had been granted selection grade in the year 1981 and he had further been selected for promotion to the Indian Police Service and his name continued to be included in the Select List prepared for promotion to the Indian Police Service till 1967. Thus, in spite of the aforesaid adverse entries, the petitioner was granted selection grade and considered fit on evaluation of his merit for promotion to the Indian Police Service. The Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Dewar Chunni Lal, AIR 1970 SC 2086 , Regional Manager v. Pawan Kumar Dubey, AIR 1976 SC 1766 , Swami Saxena v. State of U. P., AIR 1980 SC 269 and D. Ramaswami v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1982 SC 793 laid down that once a Government servant is allowed to cross efficiency bar, or promoted to a higher grade or post, adverse entries prior to that period are blotted out. For these reasons we are of the opinion that the order of compulsory retirement is vitiated as it is founded on the old entries which had become stale and had lost their value, yet those were considered in forming the requisite opinion. 15. The petitioner's name was included in the select list for promotion to the Indian Police Service in 1962 and he continued to be included in the list till 1967. Consequently, the petitioner officiated in the Indian Police Service during this period. In the select list prepared in the year 1967 the petitioner's name was not included. He successfully challenged the validity of that which was ultimately quashed by this Court and the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the litigation before the Court, a select list was prepared in December, 1969, for the year 1970. The petitioner was found fit for promotion and his name was included in the select list. The list continued in operation for two years. In the year 1972. another select list was prepared but the petitioner's name was not included in it. Thereafter a select list was prepared in December. 1974, after the petitioner had been compulsorily retired from service. It is noteworthy that the select list was prepared on the assessment of merit in accordance with regulation 5 (4) of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations. Inclusion of the petitioner's name in the select list clearly indicates that despite the adverse entries he was found to possess merit for promotion to the Indian Police Service. Those adverse entries could not be pressed into service for cutting short the petitioner's career in service while it is true that even after his promotion the petitioner could be compulsorily retired from service if his efficiency deteriorated after 1970 so much that his continuance in service was not in public interest. but that situation is not available in the Instant case. 16. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State it is stated that the Screening Committee considered the entries awarded to the petitioner for the period ending on 1-8-1974. We have perused the petitioner's character roll which was produced before us. The petitioner was awarded the following entries in the years noted against them: 1969-70. Sri Capoor was promoted and posted as S. P. Railways, Moradabad, on 26-7-1969 when the post was upgraded. We have perused the petitioner's character roll which was produced before us. The petitioner was awarded the following entries in the years noted against them: 1969-70. Sri Capoor was promoted and posted as S. P. Railways, Moradabad, on 26-7-1969 when the post was upgraded. He is a hard-working officer of average abilities who has supervised the crime satisfactorily. He has toured adequately. He has maintained satisfactory relations with brother officers. He has taken satisfactory interest in rooting out corruption and in the welfare of his men. Conduct good. Nothing has come to my knowledge which casts any reflection on the integrity of Sri M. L. Capoor. His general reputation for honesty is good and I certify his integrity. Dy. Inspector General of 22-4-70, Police, Railways, U. P. Allahabad. Sri Capoor has worked steadily during the year and has given satisfactory account of himself. 13-1-71. I. G. Police, U . P. 1970-71: An experienced officer who knows all about his job. He is hardworking and quite intelligent. On the whole, his supervision or crime and office work was satisfactory. However, he should be more prompt in the disposal of files. Conduct good. Nothing has come to my knowledge which casts any reflection on the integrity of Sri M. L. Capoor. His general reputation for honesty is good and I certify his integrity. Certified that Sri Capoor took adequate steps to maintain communal peace and harmony within his jurisdiction and effectively shouldered his responsibility for the prevention of communal disturbances. Dy. Inspector General Police, Rlys. U. P. Allahabad. April 24, 1971 Sri M. L. Capoor was S. P. Rlys. throughout the year. His work was on the whole satisfactory but he should need the advice of his DIG to be more prompt in the disposal of files. I. G. P., U. P. 16-9-1971 1970-71: I saw the work of Sri M. L. Capoor, S. P. Railways. Moradabad for the period 1-4-1970 to 31-7-1970 in ' the year under review. Sri Capoor is a very hard working officer who toured extensively and kept crime under control. Certified that Sri M. L. Capoor took adequate steps to maintain communal peace and harmony within his jurisdiction and effectively shouldered his responsibility for the prevention of communal disturbances. Nothing has come to my knowledge which casts any reflection on the integrity of Sri. M. L. Capoor. Certified that Sri M. L. Capoor took adequate steps to maintain communal peace and harmony within his jurisdiction and effectively shouldered his responsibility for the prevention of communal disturbances. Nothing has come to my knowledge which casts any reflection on the integrity of Sri. M. L. Capoor. His general reputation for honesty is good and I certify his integrity.:31-3-1971. Dy. Inspector General Police, Barcilly Range. 1971-72. This officer remained In charge of Moradabad section of the G. R. P. as Supdt. Police throughout the year. He is an experienced officer who toured extensively in his section. However, he was somewhat rigidly inclined in his relations with railway authorities and members of the force and was inapt and tactless in some of his administrative actions. As regards his crime control, some raising trend was noticed in his section during the early part of the year. Consequently he was advised at first to control it and instructed subsequently to submit a special fortnightly report to I. G. P. with a copy to DIG (Rlys.). This measure encouraged him for greater efforts and he was able to bring about an improvement in the crime situation of his section during the later part of the year. On the whole his conduct can be graded as good. Nothing has come to my knowledge which casts any reflection on the integrity of Sri M. L. Capoor. His general reputation for honesty is good and I certify his integrity. Certified that. Sri M. L. Capoor took adequate steps to maintain communal peace and harmony within his jurisdiction and effectively shouldered his responsibility for the prevention of communal disturbances. 24-4-1972. Dy. Inspector General of Police, Rlys., U. P. Allahabad. Sri Capoor is an officer of average calibre. who needs to pay more attention to details and to improve his public relations. During the period under review. his work and conduct remained satisfactory. on the whole. Inspector General of Police U. P. 1972-73: This officer took over this troublesome Battalion on June 27, 1972. An officer of average calibre, who managed his unit satisfactorily. Certified that Sri M. L. Capoor took all steps to maintain communal harmony. Certified that Sri M. L. Capoor made all efforts in regard to filling up the quota of the scheduled castes and implementing various Govt. orders on the subject. An officer of average calibre, who managed his unit satisfactorily. Certified that Sri M. L. Capoor took all steps to maintain communal harmony. Certified that Sri M. L. Capoor made all efforts in regard to filling up the quota of the scheduled castes and implementing various Govt. orders on the subject. Nothing has come to my knowledge which casts any reflection on the integrity of Sri M. L. Capoor. His general reputation for honesty is good and I certify his integrity. 2-7-73. DIG CID II U. P. Lucknow Former DIG PAC II UP Lucknow. I agree that Sri Capoor is an officer of average calibre whose work was, on the whole, satisfactory. Inspector General Police Uttar Pradesh. 5-6-73 to 7-9-73. I had the occasion to see the work of this officer from 5-6-73 to 7-9-73. There had been serious indiscipline in his Battalion in May 1973 and during this period the Battalion remained disarmed and the personnel were hardly utilised for duty. Sri M. L. Capoor could only organise the training of his personnel which he did satisfactorily. Sri Capoor is an experienced officer with a good knowledge of rules and regulations. His written expression is good and verbal expression is satisfactory. He also tried his best to restore normalcy in his Battalion. Nothing has come to my knowledge that casts any reflection on the integrity of Sri Mohan Lal Capoor. His general reputation for honesty is good and I certify his integrity. Dy. Inspector General Police, PAC Hdqrs., U. P. Lucknow. 1973-74 Sri Capoor is, no doubt an experienced officer. Although I have no knowledge of his work as Commandant of XXVI Bn. PAC, Gorakhpur. at Hamirpur, he did not prove a success and had to be shifted after 6 months. He has a knack of annoying his subordinates by his rough behaviour and practically all sections of the public were not happy with him. To his credit, however, he managed the law and order problems during the last General Elections in a fairly satisfactory manner. 9-8-1974. 12-12-73 to 31-3-74. Inspector General of Police, Uttar Pradesh. Sri M. L. Capoor has recently taken over on 12-12-73 as Supdt. of Police, Hamirpur. He is seasoned and experienced officer and has managed the VVIP/VIP's visits and General Elections well. has started off well in the district. Conduct good. 9-8-1974. 12-12-73 to 31-3-74. Inspector General of Police, Uttar Pradesh. Sri M. L. Capoor has recently taken over on 12-12-73 as Supdt. of Police, Hamirpur. He is seasoned and experienced officer and has managed the VVIP/VIP's visits and General Elections well. has started off well in the district. Conduct good. Certified that Sri Capoor took adequate steps to maintain communal peace and harmony in his district and effectively shouldered his responsibility for the prevention of communal disturbance. Certified that Sri Capoor effectively shouldered his responsibility during 1973-74 in completing the representation of scheduled castes in services and in carrying out the orders issued by the administration from time to time on this subject. Nothing has come to my knowledge which casts any reflection on the integrity of Sri Capoor. His general reputation for honesty is good and I certify his integrity. Dy. Inspector General of Police, Jhansi Range, U. P. An experienced officer, who is doing well. Maintained peace in the district during the VVIP/VIPS' visit and the last General Elections. His relations with the Magistracy and other Departments are cordial and he extends assistance to all in the maintenance of law and order. April 1, 1974. Commissioner Jhansi Division. 1-4-1974 to 1-7-1974. He is an experienced officer who is quite well conversant with all the facts of police working. His control over crime and criminals was all told, satisfactory. Certified that Sri Capoor took adequate steps to maintain communal peace and harmony in his district and effectively shouldered his responsibility for the prevention of communal disturbance. Certified that Sri Capoor effectively shouldered his responsibility during 1974-75 in completing the representation of scheduled castes in service and in carrying out the orders issued by the administration from time to time on this subject. Nothing has come to my knowledge which casts any reflection on the integrity of Sri Capoor. His general reputation for honesty is good and I certify his integrity. Dy. Inspector General of Police Jhansi Range, U. P May 17, 1975. 17. Some of the above entries do not speak very high of the petitioner's work and efficiency but nothing adverse or to the discredit of the petitioner is recorded except that the petitioner was advised not to be rigid and to be more tactful. The entries do not show that the petitioner was a dead wood in service and his chopping off was necessary in public interest. The entries do not show that the petitioner was a dead wood in service and his chopping off was necessary in public interest. The entries quoted above show that the petitioner's work was good and he enjoyed reputation for impeccable honesty and integrity. 18. The State Government did not attach any importance to the entries quoted above as. in spite of those entries the State Govt. by its order dated 19-2-1974. promoted the petitioner to a special grade and appointed him as Superintendent of Police, a post carrying the emoluments of a post in the cadre of Indian Police Service. There was no sudden fall in his efficiency within four months of his promotion. The petitioner's case was considered by the Screening Committee as it existed on 1-8-1974. The Deputy Inspector General of Police. Jhansi, Range, awarded entry to the petitioner for the period 1-4-1974 to 1-7-1974. quoted above, which speaks very high of the petitioner's work and conduct. Th. petitioner was found to have effectively shouldered his responsibility for the prevention of communal disturbances. In the month of February, 1974, the petitioner was found to possess such high merit and ability which naturally included integrity as to entitle him to promotion to selection grade post and posting in a special post drawing emoluments equal to the cadre of Indian Police Service and he' earned high appreciation of his work in July, 1974. Nothing happened between July and November, 1974. to, merit weeding out of the petitioner altogether from service in public interest. There is nothing on record to show that some grave and grim situation had developed in the in tertregnum to justify the authorities to pursue the drastic action. 19. In D. Ramaswami v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1982 Lab IC 443) the Supreme Court held that in the face of promotion of the officer just a few months earlier and there was nothing even mildly suggestive of ineptitude or inefficiency thereafter, it is impossible to sustain the order of the Government retiring the officer from service. In that case the counsel for the State had also urged that the Government was entitled to take into consideration the entire history of the officer including that part which was prior to his promotion. The Supreme Court repelled the contention and held that if there was some entry not favourable to the officer after his promotion. In that case the counsel for the State had also urged that the Government was entitled to take into consideration the entire history of the officer including that part which was prior to his promotion. The Supreme Court repelled the contention and held that if there was some entry not favourable to the officer after his promotion. the court might hark back to similar or like entries in the past read them, all in conjunction and conclude that the Government servant could be retired prematurely, but where there was nothing against the petitioner or to the discredit of the petitioner after granting him promotion shortly before the order of compulsory retirement the order would not be sustained in law. The Supreme Court observed that when there is nothing in the person casting any doubt on the wisdom of the promotion, there was no justification for needless digging into the past. 20. In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the order of the State Government retiring the petitioner prematurely from service is not sustainable in law. We accordingly allow the petition and quash the State Government's order dated 28-11-1974. The petitioner is entitled to his costs.