Judgment: 1. The Order of the Court was made by Chandurkar, C.J.: The petitioner who had joined Government Service as a Lower Division Clerk on 14-7-1947 was in 1975 a Deputy Collector. His date of birth admittedly is 14-12-1925, so that be completed 50 years of age on 13-12-75 and 25 years of Government service on 13-7-1972. 2. The petitioner was served with an order of compulsory retirement under Rule 56(d) of the Fundamental Rules on 24-7-1976. The order merely says that under Fundamental Rule 56(d), the petitioner was retired from service from the date of issue of the order and a cheque representing three months’ pay and allowances admissible on the date of retirement was enclosed. 3. This order was challenged by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Among many of the grounds raised one ground is that the order in effect is penal in nature because some charges were framed against him on 25-3-1975. This writ petition is now before us because apparently the matter seems to be concluded by the Full Bench decision of this Court in Manickam, P.A. v. Government of Tamil Nadu Manickam, P.A. v. Government of Tamil Nadu (1984) Writ.L.R. page 1. 4. The Case of the State Government in the return is that the petitioner's case was considered by the Review Committee originally on 18-9-1975 i.e. about three months prior to his completion of 50 years and the Review Committee then decided to reconsider the matter later, depending upon the course which the disciplinary proceedings would take. According to the State Government, the petitioner's case was reconsidered by the Review Committee again, and on 21-5-1976, the Raview Committee recommended the petitioner's name for compulsory retirement. In the return, the State Government gave the nature of the charges against the petitioner which showed that according to the State Governments he had awarded unduly high compensation in respect of lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The stand taken by the State Government was that, this was however, a pure and simple compulsory retirement made under Fundamental Rule 56(d), because it was not in public interest to continue the petitioner in employment. 5. The stand taken by the State Government was that, this was however, a pure and simple compulsory retirement made under Fundamental Rule 56(d), because it was not in public interest to continue the petitioner in employment. 5. When the matter was argued before us, we tried to ascertain from the learned Government Pleader as to why the Review Committee did not take any final decision in the matter of compulsory retirement of the petitioner when his case was considered first. The learned Government Pleader has fairly produced before us the recommendations of the Review Committee made on both the occasions. On the first occasion, the Review Committee took the view that in the case of the petitioner a further review would be necessary after the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him are finalised/or after six months. When the matter was considered by the Review Committee again, they made a recommendation on 21-5-1976 that the petitioner should be compulsorily retired from service. But the recommendations of the Review Committee, however, show that the case of the petitioner was considered on the footing that ‘he had completed 25 years of qualifying service on 31-8-1975 for continuance in service.‘ 6. According to Mr.Kalyanasundaram who appears for the petitioner, the petitioner's case is covered by the decision of the Full Bench in (1984) Writ.L.R. page 1 because the order of compulsory” retirement of the petitioner which was made on 24-7-1976 is not based on any fresh material between 18-9-1975 which is the date on which the Review Committee considered the petitioner's case for the first time and 24-7-1976 when the order of compulsory retirement was made. It is not necessary for us to go into this question which is raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, because on a perusal of the relevant records which have been fairly produced on behalf of the Government, it appears to us that the order of compulsory retirement is vitiated by a complete want of application of the mind to the material legal position, which the Review Committee was bound to consider. Undoubtedly, Rule 56(d) as in force at the material time and which came into force on 30-11-1972 enabled the State Government that if it was in public interest, a Government servant could be compulsorily retired’ after he has attained the age of fifty years or after he has completed twenty-five years of qualyfying service. Undoubtedly, Rule 56(d) as in force at the material time and which came into force on 30-11-1972 enabled the State Government that if it was in public interest, a Government servant could be compulsorily retired’ after he has attained the age of fifty years or after he has completed twenty-five years of qualyfying service. ‘The rule having come into force on 30-11-1972, the petitioner's case could not have been considered on the footing that he had completed 25 years of qualifying service because he had completed the said period of service long before the rule come into force. Even otherwise, the recommendation shows that there was a mechanical consideration of the case of the petitioner, because Rule 56(d) does not contemplate anything like qualifying service with reference to the date 31-8-1975, which has been recited in the recommendation of the Review Committee, while referring to the fact that the petitioner had completed 25 years of qualifying service. This shows that the Review Committee had completely misread the provision in Rule 56(d). The petitioner having completed 25 years of qualifying service on 13-7-1972, the only footing on which his case for compulsory retirement could have been considered, was the earlier part of Rule 56(d), which refers to attaining the age of 50 years. This the review Committee has not done. As a matter of fact, the recommendations even on the face of them do not show that the question as to whether the petitioner was entitled to be retained in service after attaining the age of fifty years was ever considered by the Second Review Committee. 7. The learned Government Pleader wanted to contend that even though the words ‘50 years of age’ have been struck off in the recommendation, the recommendation of the Review Committee must be so read as to indicate that the question of retention of the petitioner in Government Service was considered on the basis of his age, not on the basis of his service in Government employment. This it is impermissible to do, because the recommendations have been signed by four members of the Committee, we must read the recommendations as they have been made to the State Government. This it is impermissible to do, because the recommendations have been signed by four members of the Committee, we must read the recommendations as they have been made to the State Government. On the short ground that the Review Committee has not applied its mind to the relevant requirement of Fundamental Rule 56(d), the recommendation of the Review Committee and consequently the order of the State Government made on the basis of that recommendation are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, we quash the order of compulsory retirement dated 24-7-1976. The petitioner will be entitled to be treated as being in employment from 25-7-1976 till the date of his normal superannuation under the relevant Fundamental Rule. The petitioner will consequently be entitled to all the incidental benefits as if that he was in employment till the date of his superannuation. The petitioner will be entitled to the costs of this petition. Counsel's fee is computed at Rs.400/-. Ordered accordingly.