JUDGMENT K.K. Birla, J. - The Petitioner was promoted on adhoc basis of Sub Registrar in the year 1971. His promotion was regularised by the Inspector General Registration by his order dated 24th February, 1989. However, by his order dated 30th January, 1990 the Inspector General Registration, Respondent No. 2 compulsorily retired him on payment of three months' salary. 2. Being aggrieved by the impugned order the Petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 3. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and the writ petition is being disposed of finally at this State itself. 4. The main contention of the Petitioner is that in February, 1989 his promotion had been regularised on the basis of the service rendered by him. No adverse entry has been made against him nor his conduct was found unsatisfactory after his promotion and as such order of compulsory retirement is without any application of mind and bad in law. 5. On the other hand it is contended by the learned Standing Counsel that the Petitioner had two adverse entries, that is, in the year 1979-80 and 1986/87, that his record for the last 10 years was considered and as such his retirement is in the public interest and in accordance with Fundamental Rule 56 (Clause J). No doubt under this rule the appropriate authority has absolute right to retire any Government servant compulsorily in the public interest. But such right is not to be exercised arbitrarily, particularly because no criteria or guide lines except public interest have been prescribed in the rule. 6. In the case of Brij Mohan Singh Chopra Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 948 certain guidelines have been prescribed. It has been held that "it is now settled that adverse entries if any, awarded to any employee lose their significance on or after his promotion to a higher post it is now well settled that while considering the question of premature retirement it may be desirable to make an overall assessment of the Government servant's record, but while doing that, more value should be attached to the confidential reports pertaining to the years immediately preceding such considerations...This Court has consistently taken the view that old and stale entries should not be taken into account while considering the question of premature retirement." 7. In the case before me one entry relates to the year 1979-80 and it is almost 10 year's old. The other entry is of 1986-87 (see para 21 of the counter affidavit). The copies of these entries have not been filed along with the counter affidavit and it is not clear what the gravity and nature of these entries. However, in the rejoinder affidavit it has been mentioned that a representation against the entry relating to the year 1979-80 is pending and has not yet been decided. 8. It is however, asserted in the rejoinder affidavit that there is no adverse entry after the year 1979-80. The entry of 1986-87 relate to the entry of the year 1979-80. There is no reason to disbelieve the averments made in the rejoinder affidavit. Therefore, the result is that the representation against the adverse entry of 1979-80 is still pending and the entry of 1986-87 also concern the same matter. In the case of Sri Brij Mohan (supra) it has further been held that "if such a representation is made it is imperative that the authority should consider the representation with the view to determine as to whether the contents of the adverse entries are justified or not...Unless the representation against the adverse entry is considered and disposed of, it is not just and fair to act upon those adverse entries...It would be unjust and unfair and contrary to principles of natural justice to retire prematurely a Government employee on the basis of adverse entries which are either no communicated to him or if communicated, representations made against those entries are not considered and disposed of. In the above cited case also there were two adverse entries. The representations against which were pending and in these circumstances the order of compulsory retirement was held to be unsustainable in-law. The principles laid down in the above cited case clearly supports the Petitioner's contention. 9. In the case of Om Prakash v. State of U.P. 1990 (1) UP LB EC 610, also the adhoc services of Sub Registrar were regularised in May, 1989 and just after 7 months of regularisation order of compulsory retirement was passed under the aforesaid Rule 56. There was no adverse entry in service record after 1989 and as such the compulsory retirement was held to be unsustainable and quashed. There was no adverse entry in service record after 1989 and as such the compulsory retirement was held to be unsustainable and quashed. In this cited case there were three adverse entries relating to the years 1974, 1980 and 1982- All these three adverse entries are prior to the date of regularisation of the service. It has been held that adverse entries awarded to the Petitioner in 1974, 1980 and 1982 have lost their significance, after regularisation of his service. This case also squarely applies to the case before me. 10. In view of the above discussions I am of the opinion that the impugned order of compulsory retirement is unsustainable in law. 11. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of compulsory retirement dated 30th January, 1990 is quashed. The Petitioner will be permitted to work till the date of superannuation unless his services are terminated on any other ground.