Judgment :- V. RAMASWAMI, J. :— 1.This is an appeal against the order of the learned single Judge of this Court dismissing a petition filed by the appellant even at the admission stage. The appellant was appointed as a Propaganda Officer in the department of Social Welfare Information and Publicity as per G.O.Ms. No. 789, Social Welfare, Information and Publicity department, on the 25th October, 1979. Prior to his appointment, it appears that he was employed in the Postal Services for about 23 years, i.e., from 1946. After his appoint ment as Propoganda Officer, he was promoted as Assistant Director (Publicity and Propoganda) with effect from 1-6-1970 and again he was further promoted as Deputy Director as per G.O.Ms. No. 190 Public (Information and Public Relations Administration I) department, dated 21-1-1976. He completed his probation as Deputy Director on 21-1-1976. He was reverted as Assistant Director on 7-2-1976 and posted as Public Relations Officer. The reversion was not on any enquiry or as punishment, but it is stated that it was done on administrative grounds. He was compulsorily retired under F.R. 56(d) on 27-6-1976. 2. Under F.R.56(d) a Government servant could be compulsorily retired subject to the conditions specified therein, viz., after he has attained the age of 50 years, or after he has completed 25 years of qualifying service In this case 25 years of service in the State Government have not been completed as the appellant was recruited afresh to the Government service only in 1969. If his service in the postal department is to be taken into account, then he would have put in nearly 30 years of qualifying service. He was stated to have been born on 15-10-1925. He would have completed 50 years of age on 15-10-1975. It has been held in a series of judgments of this Court including a Full Bench decision reported in Manickam v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu 1, that the termination of service should synchronise with the completion of 25 years of qualifying service or 50 years of age and it could not be done after completion of that age. Therefore, the order of compulsory retirement impugned in this writ appeal is invalid. of Tamil Nadu 1, that the termination of service should synchronise with the completion of 25 years of qualifying service or 50 years of age and it could not be done after completion of that age. Therefore, the order of compulsory retirement impugned in this writ appeal is invalid. It has also been held in these judgments that the compulsory retirement should have been made after getting the advisory opinion of the Committee and a reference to such Committee should be made at least prior to such completion of 50 years of age or 25 years of qualifying service as the case may be. That also had not been complied with in this case. 3. For all these reasons, the order of compulsory retirement could not be sustained land it is accordingly set aside. The writ appeal is allowed and the rule nisi is made absolute. However, there will be no order as to costs. 4. Since the appellants date of birth is 15-10-1925, he would have normally retired on 14-10-1983. Since 14th happens to be a middle of the month, he would have retired on 31-10-1983. Since that date is over, he shall be deemed to have been in service continuously without a break from 27-6-1976 and retired on 31-10-1983 and, therefore, he will be entitled to all his emoluments and perks for the period from 27-7-1976 until 31-10 1983. He will be also entitled to the retirement benefits as if he has retired from service in the normal circumstances on 31-10-1983.