Judgment S.RANGANATHAN, J. (1) LEAVE granted. (2) WE have heard the learned Additional Solicitor-General on behalf of the government and the respondent who appeared in person. The respondent was retired from service w.e.f. 17/09/1984 on the basis of a medical report. The central Administrative tribunal held that there was a defect in the constitution of the Medical Board. The order of retirement was, therefore, set aside and the government was directed to reinstate the respondent in service forthwith with all con- sequential benefits. (3) WE find that, even assuming that there was some defect in the constitution of the Medical Board on the basis of the report of which the respondent was retired, the government constituted a fresh Medical Board on two occasions in 1983 and called upon the respondent to appear before this Medical Board for medical examination but the respondent did not appear before the Board. When the matter came up Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 738 of 1988 before us on an earlier occasion, after hearing parties, we directed that a Special Medical Board may be constituted to examine the fairness of the respondent to continue in service. This report has been received. The Special Medical Board convened on 10/10/1991 has expressed the opinion that the respondent cannot be retained in any post, even in a lower, post, because of his eyesight which is likely to deteriorate further. (4) TAKING into account all subsequent developments and the facts of the case, we think that the most appropriate order to pass in the circum- stances of the case would be to uphold the order of compulsory retire- ment passed in 1984. However, on sympathetic considerations we direct the appellants to treat the respondent as having retired from service on 31/10/1991 only for the limited purpose of counting the number of years of service of the respondent for the purposes of pension. In other words, the order of compulsory retirement of 1984 is upheld. The pay- ment of pension to the respondent between 1984 and 1991 is not dis- turbed but from 1/11/1991 the respondent will be entitled to receive higher pension on the footing that his length of service continued up to 31/10/1991. In other words, the order of compulsory retirement of 1984 is upheld. The pay- ment of pension to the respondent between 1984 and 1991 is not dis- turbed but from 1/11/1991 the respondent will be entitled to receive higher pension on the footing that his length of service continued up to 31/10/1991. We may also make it clear that no back wages will be paid to the respondent for the period from 17/09/1984 to 31/10/1991 nor will he be entitled to any other advantage which may have accrued to him had he continued in service during this period. (5) THE appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.