R.K Manisana, J.- This appal arises from the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge passed in Civil Rule No. 174 of 1979 on 9.4.81. 2. The appellant joined the service under North East Frontier Agency (now Arunachal Pradesh) in the year 1948. At the relevant time the appellant was a member of the "Indian Frontier Administra­tive Service" and was working as Officer on Special Duty (Works Study) under the then Government of Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh. While the appellant was in the service as such, the Pres­ident of India issued a notice of October 31st November 1st, 1975 to the effect that the appellant shall retire from his services with effect from February 1st, 1976, or on the expiry of the three months from the date of receipt of the notice, whichever is later. Before the notice of compulsory retirement, the appellant was communicated two adverse, entries, one for the year "1973-74" and another for the period “April to December 1974" under letters dated September 17th, 1975 and September 5th, 1975 respectively. The appell­ant submitted representations against the adverse entries. After the notice of compulsory retirement, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government o India by a letter dated August 2nd, 1976 informed the appellant that his representation dated October 8th, 1975 had been rejected. 3. The findings of the learned Single Judge are, inter alia, as follows. A high powered Committee consisting of Home Secretary, Additional Secretary (UT) and Joint Secretary (U P) was formed. The Committee reviewed the entire service career of the appellant from 1948 on the basis of the Character Rolls and recommended the retirement of the appellant sometime in September 1975. The adverse remarks for the years 1971-72 and 1972-73 were communicated the appellant by a letter dated October 28th, 1974. Some of the adverse entries were not communicated in time to the appellant, and the representations of the appellant against those adverse remarks were not disposed of when the impugned order of retirement was made, but these adverse entries were taken into account while passing the impugned order of retirement. 4. The findings of facts by the learned Single Judge is not disputed before us. 4. The findings of facts by the learned Single Judge is not disputed before us. In view of the above findings, the question which arose before the learned Single Judge was : Whether those adverse entries could have been relied on without the same having been communicated in time to the petitioner and without disposing of his representations before he was asked to quit ? 5. The learned Single Judge has, relying on decisions of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. M. E. Reddy, AIR 1980 SC 563 and Brij Behari vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 594 , held that those entries could be considered and dismissed the writ petition. In Reddy' case, it has been held : "We have already pointed out relying on the dictum of this Court laid down by Hidayatullah, C. J. that the confidential reports can certainly be considered by the appointing authority in passing the order of retirement even if they are not comm­unicated to the officer concerned. (emphasis added) In Brij Behari's case, the Supreme Court referred the decision in Reddy's case but on the facts of the case the Supreme Court set aside the order of compulsory retirement. 6. As regards the representations against adverse entry in the confidential roll, it is imperative that the authority should consider the representation expeditiously. Time limit has been prescribed under the instruction issued by the Government of India. In para 3 (c) of the instruction of the Government of India Appendix 29, Chondhary's compilation of the Civil Service Regulations, Vol -II, 1972 Edition), it is provided : "Adverse remarks are communicated to the officers concerned in all cases; and aggrieved officers should submit their re­presentations within six weeks from the date of communicat­ion of adverse remarks. The competent authority should take a decision on the representation expeditiously and in any case not later than six weeks from the date of submission of t in representations.” 7. Unfortunately, in the present case, for one reason or another, not arising out of any fault on the part of the appellant, the Govern­ment of India has not been able to consider his representations and decide whether the adverse entries were justified or not before the appellant was asked to retire. Unfortunately, in the present case, for one reason or another, not arising out of any fault on the part of the appellant, the Govern­ment of India has not been able to consider his representations and decide whether the adverse entries were justified or not before the appellant was asked to retire. The delay in consideration of the representation of the appellant had adversely affected the service career of the appellant and had taken away the advantage of the appellant to continue in the service upto the statutory age of superannuation. In Amarkanta vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1984 SC 531 . it has bean held that unless the adverse report is communi­cated and representation, if any, made by the Government servant is considered, it cannot be acted upon to deny promotional opport­unities. Making of representation and consideration of the same is a valuable right of a Government employee. Therefore, we are of the opinion that, if the principle laid down in Amar Kanta's case is made applicable to a case where averse entries are taken into consideration for compulsory retirement, it would be just and fair. Our this view finds support from a later decision of the Supreme Court in Brij Mohan Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 948 . In that case, the Supreme Court has held . "It would be unjust and unfair and contrary to principles of natural justice to retire prematurely a Govt. employee on the 'basis of adverse entries which are either not communicated to him for if communicated representations made against those entries are not considered and disposed of." The rejection of the representations of the appellant after his retire­ment is of no consequence. For these reasons, the order of compulsory retirement of the appellant made by considering the adverse entries without taking a decision on his representations is liable to be quashed, 8. The decision in Roddy's case was an authority for the proposition that uncommunicated adverse entry can be considered in passing the order of retirement. But the later decision of the Supreme Court in Brij Mohan Singh (supra) is against the decision in Reddy's case. 9. In view of the above discussion, the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. 10. The next question which arise for consideration is what relief should be granted to the appellant . But the later decision of the Supreme Court in Brij Mohan Singh (supra) is against the decision in Reddy's case. 9. In view of the above discussion, the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. 10. The next question which arise for consideration is what relief should be granted to the appellant . The appellant died after his atta­ining the statutory age of superannuation. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, if the appellant's heirs are given monetary benefits as may be admissible to then under the rule, it will meet the ends of justice. 11. For the foregoing reasons, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and order passed in Civil Rule No. 174 of 1979, quash the impugned order of retirement issued by the President of India under letter No. U. 14032/ 6/73-UTS dated October 31st/November 1st, 1V75 of the Ministry of Home Affairs and direct that the appellant (since deceased) shall be deemed or treated that he was in service till he attained the age of superannuation. The appellant's heirs shall be enti­tled to all the consequential monetary benefits as may be admissible to them under the rules. With the said observations and direction, the appeal is allowed. No costs. A.Raghuvir, C.J.- I agree.