JUDGMENT S.C. Mathur, J. - This petition is directed against order of premature retirement at the age of 53 years. The petitioner was holding the post of Executive Engineer in the Public Works Department. 2. The order of premature retirement has been challenged on the following three grounds (i) Adverse entries were communicated to the petitioner with considerable delay 1. (ii) representations of the petitioner were pending against several entries when decision to retire him prematurely was taken ; and (iii) the domestic enquiry was pending against the petitioner and, therefore, the order of retirement is by way of punishment. 3. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties it has not been disputed that the petitioner had preferred representations against several entries and that some of them were pending also. However, it has been stated that such entries against which representations were pending have not been taken into consideration while taking the decision of premature retirement. It is denied that there was inordinate delay in communication of adverse entries. Pendency of the domestic enquiry at the time of premature retirement is not in dispute. 4. In support of the last ground of challenge, learned Counsel for the petitioner has cited : (i) J.N. Bajpai v. State of U.P. and others, 1990 (8) LCD 149 : and (il) Mohan Lal Garg v. State of U.P. and others, 1991 (9) LCD 337. In both these decisions, it has been held that compulsory retirement during pendency of the departmental proceeding violates Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. The former is Division Bench decision Which is binding on me. No contrary decision has been cited by the learned Counsel for the State. On the last ground alone the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, it is not necessary to consider the other two grounds. 5. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the order of compulsory retirement dated 14th December, 1989, Annexure-23 passed by the State Government and the consequential order dated 16th December, 1989, Annexure-24 passed by the Chief Engineer, U.P. Public Works Department, Lucknow are hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be deemed to be continuing in service and shall be entitled to consequential benefits. He shall be forthwith reinstated in service. The petitioner shall be deemed to be continuing in service and shall be entitled to consequential benefits. He shall be forthwith reinstated in service. This order will not debar the opposite parties from placing the petitioner under suspension if it is considered necessary in connection with any enquiry that may be pending or that may become pending hereinafter in contemplation thereof. 6. There shall be no order as to costs.