Judgment : A.P. Singh 1. BY means of present writ petition, petitioner Beni Madhav Upadhyaya, Sub-Registrar, has challenged the order of his compulsory retirement dated 13-11-1991 (annexure-8 to the writ petition) and has also sought an order in the nature of Mandamus for directing respondents to treat him in service with all service benefits. 2. BRIEF facts of the case may be stated as follows. Petitioner was appointed initially as a Camp clerk on 31st July, 1986 on which post he was confirmed on 1-4-1962. In due course, he was promoted as junior Noter and Drafter on 22-11-1979 and was confirmed on that post on 1-8-1985. Thereafter, petitioner was promoted as senior Noter and Drafter, on which post too he was confirmed on 13-11-1990 with effect from 1-8-1986. He was also promoted as Office Superintendent with effect from 1-8-1990 by order dated 13-11-1990 itself. The petitioner was then promoted as Sub- Registrar on 5-5-1991, on which post he continued to work till the date of passing of the impugned order of compulsory retirement which was passed by the Inspector General (Registration) who happens to be his appointing authority. The order was passed in exercise of the powers under fundamental Rule, 56 (c), Vol. II, Parts II to IV. The order of compulsory retirement is stated to be in public interest. No reasons have been given for passing the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner. Respondents have, however, filed a copy of the Screening Committee's report as annexure 1 to the Counter affidavit on the basis whereof it is stated the petitioner was retired. Para 7 of the Screening Committee's report deals with the case of petitioner. It reads as follows : "Nibandhan vibhag me vittiya vars 1990-91 me up-nibandhak adhisthan ko ki gayi screening se sambandhit karyawahi : 1................ 2............... 3................. 4................. 5.........??...... 6................ 7 chha-Sri Beni Madhav upadhyay up-nibandhak ka karya bahut hi kharab raha hai. Gata 10 varson me sthiti nimna prakar hai- (1) Vars 1981-82 me vittiya aniyamitataon ke arop me doshi paye gaye tatha satyanistha pramanit nahi ki gayi. (2) Vars 1983-84 me saman kray karne aur chaturth shreni ke karma- chariyon ke aharan me vittiya aniyamitata ke doshi paye gaye. (3) Vars 1984-85 me bhi samagri kray aur chaturth shreni karmachariyon ke vetan aharan me bhi aniyamitata payi gayi. (2) Vars 1983-84 me saman kray karne aur chaturth shreni ke karma- chariyon ke aharan me vittiya aniyamitata ke doshi paye gaye. (3) Vars 1984-85 me bhi samagri kray aur chaturth shreni karmachariyon ke vetan aharan me bhi aniyamitata payi gayi. (4) Vars 1985-86 me cashier aur nazir ke karya me asavcihani varti tatha vittiya aniyamitata ki. Aek vars ki vetan vridhi roki gayi. (5) Vars 1990-91 me samuhik jivan vima ke prapta cheque ko apne pas rakhe rahe aur kalatit ho gaye. Is laparwahi evam kartabyahinata ke liye inhe nindit kiya gaya. Vigata 10 varson ke atirikt vars 1974-75, 1975-76, 1976-77 me kartabyahinata aur gair zimmedari ke liye pratikul pravishti di gayi. Vars 1975-76 me visesh pratikul pravisti di gayi hai. Uprokt tathyaon ke adhar par Sri Upadhyay ko sewa me bane rahane ka koi auchitya nahi hai. Inhe anivarya rup se sewa se prithak kiya jaye." (J. P. Misra) (C. M. Srivastava) (R. K. Kunwar) Apar Mahanirikshak Nibandhan, Apar Maha- Ni. Mahanirikshak, U. P., Allahabad nirikshak, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad Allahabad 3. A perusal of the relevant portion of the Screening Committee's report which deals with the petitioner, shows that the petitioner was retired on the ground of various adverse entries awarded to him in the last ten years of his service preceding the passing of the order of compulsory retirement, viz. between 1983-84 and 1990-91. Apart from this, it has also been noted in the said order that even before that period in the earlier ten years also petitioner had been given various adverse entries in the years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77 and, therefore, petitioner was not found fit to be retained in service. 4. IN the writ petition the petitioner has stated that the adverse entries enumerated in the Screening Committee's report were no doubt awarded to him but he filed representations against all these adverse entries immediately after the same were communicated to him but none of the representations filed by him in respect of the adverse entries were decided as no order deciding his representations was ever communicated to him. It was further alleged that all the representations relating to the adverse entries enumerated above were kept pending till the date of the passing of the order of compulsory retirement as the respondents did not take any decision either allowing or rejecting the said representations. It was further alleged that all the representations relating to the adverse entries enumerated above were kept pending till the date of the passing of the order of compulsory retirement as the respondents did not take any decision either allowing or rejecting the said representations. Initially in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents through Sri Mahavir Yadav, Additional Inspector General (Registration) stated in para 5 that no representation of the petitioner was pending at the government level. In paras 8 and 13 of the counter affidavit also the same statement that no representation of the petitioner was pending at the government level was repeated. 5. THE petitioner, however, in the rejoinder affidavit denied the averments made by Sri Mahavir Yadav in his counter affidavit and stated that the representations were still pending decision by the government. Petitioner has also filed authentic evidence regarding filing of the representations and their pendency. Faced with this situation, this Court by order dated 15-2- 1993 directed the Inspector General (Registration) and also Sri Mahavir Yadav to file a fresh affidavit regarding pendency of petitioner's representations, I.G. Registration caused filing of affidavit by one Sri R. N. Tripathi, Addl. I.G. (Regn) on his behalf and in para 4 thereof it was stated that Mahavir Yadav was no more available to file affidavit on account of his transfer. THE affidavit was sworn on 15-3-93 and filed on 9-4-93. In paras 2 and 3 of the affidavit of Sri R. N. Tripathi it was stated that the representations of petitioner against adverse entries had not been disposed of by the government and all his representations were still pending which was apparent from the letter of the government No. J.R. 88/11-93-63 (m)/76 dated 18-2- 1993. Thereafter, by order dated 20-4-93 Sri Mahavir Yadav was summoned by the Court to be present in the Court on 26-4-93. On 26-4-93 he was given warning by the Court not to file false affidavit in Court in future. THE court then directed the Secretary Institutional Finance Government of U. P. to decide representations of petitioner within three weeks from the date of service of the order on him and the copy of the order was required to be filed by the respondents in the Court with an affidavit within a month. 6. THE court then directed the Secretary Institutional Finance Government of U. P. to decide representations of petitioner within three weeks from the date of service of the order on him and the copy of the order was required to be filed by the respondents in the Court with an affidavit within a month. 6. THEREAFTER, petitioner filed an affidavit of service on 14-7-93 stating that the order of the Court dated 26-4-93 was served on respondents including Secretary Institutional Finance on 12-5-93 but the representations were not decided in compliance of the Court's order dated 26-4-93. Ultimately, however, on 19-7-93 the respondents filed the affidavit of Sri R. N. Tripathi, Addl. Inspector General (Registration) for bringing on record the order dated 17-7-93 passed by the Secretary Institutional Finance rejecting all the representations filed by petitioner, by a common order. However, regarding the adverse entries of the years 1983-84 and 1984-85 the secretary observed that the integrity of the petitioner was not certified although his work and conduct was found to be satisfactory, as some enquiry was pending against him, he directed the I. G. (Regn.) to certify the integrity of the petitioner if the enquiry was over. Petitioner has challenged the order of compulsory retirement on two grounds. The first ground taken by the petitioner is that since the petitioner had been granted promotions from time to time on merit-cum-seniority basis, on the posts of junior noter-drafter in 1979 on which post he was confirmed with effect from 1-8-85, again promoted as senior noter drafter and confirmed on that post with effect from 1-8-86 and also promoted as office Superintendent and thereafter as Sub-Registrar, therefore, all the adverse entries awarded to him between 1974-75 to April 1990 lost their efficacy and became meaningless and, therefore, could not be relied upon for the purpose of passing the order of compulsory retirement. 7. THE second ground taken by the petitioner for attacking the impugned order of compulsory retirement was that the same was vitiated on account of having been passed due to the adverse entries against which representations were still pending and had not been decided. 7. THE second ground taken by the petitioner for attacking the impugned order of compulsory retirement was that the same was vitiated on account of having been passed due to the adverse entries against which representations were still pending and had not been decided. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, there was no adverse entry against the petitioner against which he had not filed representation and since all the adverse entries were challenged by means of representations and all of them had not been decided, the order of compulsory retirement under Fundamental Rule 56 (c) could not be passed. THE fact that petitioner had filed representation against all the adverse entries communicated to him which have actually been relied upon for passing the order of compulsory retirement were challenged by means of representations and all those representations were pending on the date of passing of the order of compulsory retirement and none of his representations had been decided is an admitted fact. 8. NOW I take the first point argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The argument appears to be well founded. The adverse entries which have been considered by the Screening Committee against the petitioner relate to the years 1981-82, 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86, and 1990-91. These were within ten years of the consideration of petitioner's case for compulsory retirement by the Screening Committee, apart from these, entries of the years 1974-75, 1975-76, 1976-77 were also taken into account. NOW coming to the promotions which were given to the petitioner on merit and seniority are in the years 1979 (22-12-1979) as junior noter and drafter, then confirmed on that post on 30-8-89 with effect from 1-8-1985 Then on 13-11-90 he was promoted and confirmed as senior noter and drafter w.e.f. 1-8-86. He was again promoted as Office Superintendent on 1-3-89 by order dated 13-11-90 confirmed as Office Superintendent. He was also promoted as Sub Registrar by order dated 15-5-1990 on officiating basis. According to the petitioner all the adverse entries awarded to him prior to 1990 became redundant and could not be considered by the Screening Committee for picking him up for purpose of passing an order of compulsory retirement. He was also promoted as Sub Registrar by order dated 15-5-1990 on officiating basis. According to the petitioner all the adverse entries awarded to him prior to 1990 became redundant and could not be considered by the Screening Committee for picking him up for purpose of passing an order of compulsory retirement. The petitioner contended that since the adverse entries awarded to the petitioner prior to 5-5-90 and also prior to the orders of his promotion on various posts such as junior noter and drafter, senior noter and drafter and Office Superintendent were considered, as such the impugned order of compulsory retirement deserves to be quashed. The fact that the petitioner was granted promotions as junior noter and drafter, senior noter and drafter as well as Office Superintendent and Sub-Registrar has not been denied in the counter affidavit filed by the department. Respondents also do not dispute that the petitioner was given promotions on the basis of merit-cum-seniority. However, at the stage of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the respondents stated that since the petitioner was given promotion on the post of Sub-Registrar on Officating basis, as such, his promotion on officiating basis will not have the same effect as promotions on regular basis and, as such, adverse entries awarded to the petitioner prior to his promotion as Sub-Registrar cannot be washed away only because of his promotion as Sub-Registrar on officiating basis. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents is not based on factual averments made in the counter affidavit. It is not the case of respondents that petitioner was granted promotions on purely officiating basis on account of his seniority and his merit was not considered while giving the promotion. Although petitioner's promotion was for a fixed term and on officiating basis but the promotion on the post of Sub-Registrar, will only be considered to have been made on the guidelines given in the relevant rules specifically when there is no allegation from the respondents that the petitioner was given promotion on Officiating basis for a limited period to meet the administrative exigency. Rule 16 of U. P. Sub- Registrars' Service Rules 1982 provides for promotion on the post of Sub-Registrar on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit. Rule 16 of U. P. Sub- Registrars' Service Rules 1982 provides for promotion on the post of Sub-Registrar on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit. In view of this Rule, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, specially in absence of pleading to that effect, that petitioner's promotion as Sub-Registrar on officiating basis will not have the effect of washing away the adverse entries awarded to him prior to his promotion as is the Rule in the case of regular promotions. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents in this respect suffers from another snag. Although initially the petitioner was given promotion for a fixed period but he continued to hold that post even after the expiry of that period and the impugned order was passed retiring him from the post of Sub-Registrar and not from the post of Office Superintendent from which post he was promoted as Sub-Registrar. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, does not deserve serious consideration as the respondents themselves have accepted petitioner as the holder of the post of Sub-Registrar. Thus it is obvious that the petitioner was promoted as Sub-Registrar under the Rules on 15-5-1990 on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit which obviously was on account of his good service record. 9. THE petitioner has also filed a copy of a letter dated 8-11-1989. It was written by the Inspector General (Registration) to earlier holders of this post, namely, Sri S. Dass, who was then posted as Consolidation Commissioner, Sri Ram Mohan Singh who was then posted as Special Secretary and Sri Girdhar Gopal who was then posted as Member Revenue Board requesting them to send copy of adverse entries given by them against the petitioner so that petitioner's case for promotion could be considered by him. Reference to this letter has been made in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the writ petition which has not been denied in the counter affidavit. This conclusively proves that the petitioner was given promotion on the post of Sub-Registrar in May 1990 by the Inspector General (Registration) after all the adverse entries awarded against the petitioner till that date were considered along with the representations filed by him. THE contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, loses the ground and is without substance. 10. THE contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, loses the ground and is without substance. 10. THERE is yet another aspect which deserves notice in this connection. As will be clear from the facts narrated above, petitioner was given promotion on the post of Office Superintendent on 1-3-1989 and was confirmed on that post vide order dated 13-11-90 with effect from 1-8-90. Petitioner's confirmation on the post of Office Superintendent vide order dated 13-11-90 has the same effect which is applicable to the case of promotion. As incumbent of a post is not confirmed on that post to which he is promoted or appointed unless his service record is found satisfactory. Thus, confirmation of the petitioner on the post of Office Superintendent as well as on the post of senior Noter and Drafter by the same order on 13-11-90 is indicative of the fact that the appointing authority found nothing wrong in the service record of the petitioner which could disqualify the petitioner from being promote/confirmed on the post of both senior Noter and Drafter and Office Superintendent. Thus, the adverse entries awarded to the petitioner prior to 13-11-90 lost the sting and became meaningless and could not be considered by the Screeing Committee as well as by the Appointing Authority for passing an order of compulsory retirement in exercise of power under Fundamental Rule 56 (c). The question whether the petitioner's promotion on the post of Sub-Registrar by order dated 15-5-90 was on officiating basis and also the question as to whether that promotion has the same effect as regular promotion, as argued by the learned counsel for the respondents, thus does not make any difference in view of the order dated 13-11-90 passed subsequent thereto by the Appointing Authority for confirming the petitioner on the post of senior Noter and Drafter and Office Superintendent. In support of his first contention Sri Barun Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Baikuntha Nath Dass v. Chief District Medical Officer Baripada, 1992 (2) SCC 299 , in which inter alia, it was held : "The Government (or the Review Committee, as the case may be) shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter of course attaching more importance to record of and performance during the later years. The record to be so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential record/character rolls, both favourable and adverse. If a Government servant is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding the adverse remarks such remarks loss their sting, more so, if promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority." 11. LEARNED counsel also placed reliance on a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Daya Chand v. District Magistrate, Meerut, 1992 (1) UP LB EC 5. In this decision too this Court relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Baidyanath Mahapatra v. State of Orissa, 1989 (4) SCC 6164, hold that the adverse entries awarded prior to the passing of the order of promotion lose their sting and those entries cannot be considered by the Screening Committee nor an order of compulsory retirement of the government servant under Rule 56 (c) of the Fundamental Rules can be passed on the strength of those entries. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Baidyanath Mahapatra is as follows : "The adverse entries relating to the years 1969-70, 1970-71, 1972-73 and 1975-76 had lost all significance, because inspite of these entries the appellant was considered to be an intelligent and efficient officer and in that view he was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer. If those entries did not reflect deficiency in appellant's work and conduct for the purpose of promotion, it is difficult to comprehend as to how those adverse entries could be pressed into service for retiring him prematurely, when a Government servant is promoted to a higher post on the basis of merit and selection, adverse entries, if any, contained in his service, record lost their significance and those, remain on record as part of past history. It would be unjust to curtail the service career of Government servant on the basis of those entries in the absence of any significant fall in his performance after his promotion." 12. SIMILAR view has been expressed by the Apex Court in the cases of Dr. Ramaswami v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1982 SC 793 paras 3 and 4 and Brij Mohan Chopra v. State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 948 . In Dr. SIMILAR view has been expressed by the Apex Court in the cases of Dr. Ramaswami v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1982 SC 793 paras 3 and 4 and Brij Mohan Chopra v. State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 948 . In Dr. Ramaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court held : "After his promotion as Deputy Commissioner there was no entry in service Book to his discredit or hinting even remotely that he had out lived his utility as a government servant. If there was some entry, not wholly favourable to appellants after his promotion, one might hark back to similar or like entries in the past read them all in conjunction and conclude that the time had arrived for the Government servant to quit government service. But, with nothing of the sort, it is indeed odd to retire a government servant a few months after promoting him to a selection post. In the face of the promotion of the appellant just a few months earlier and nothing even mildly suggestive of inaptitude or inefficiency thereafter, it is impossible to sustain the order of the government retiring the appellant from service." In Brij Mohan Chopra v. State of Punjab the Supreme Court held : "On a perusal of the same we find that the respondents took into consideration some of the adverse entries which related to remote past prior to the promotion of the appellant to the post of Joint Director (Industries). 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. The adverse entries awarded to the appellant prior to 1968 could not be taken into consideration and, therefore, the adverse entries for the years 1960-61, 1963-64 and 1964-65 could not legally be taken into consideration in forming requisite opinion to retire the appellant prematurely from service." 13. The adverse entries awarded to the appellant prior to 1968 could not be taken into consideration and, therefore, the adverse entries for the years 1960-61, 1963-64 and 1964-65 could not legally be taken into consideration in forming requisite opinion to retire the appellant prematurely from service." 13. IN view of the consistent view of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court, obviously on the lines of the Supreme Court, taken on the point I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the adverse entries awarded to the petitioner in the years 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1990 91 and also earlier to them, namely, in the years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77 could not be used for judging the suitability of the petitioner for being retained in service on reaching the age of 50 and for the purposes of passing the order of compulsory retirement under Rule 56 (c) of the Fundamental Rules as the said entries lost their significance on petitioner's getting promotion on the posts of junior Noter and Drafter on 22-12-1979 and confirmed on that post on 30-8-89 with effect from 1-8-85. Again promoted as senior Noter and Drafter by order dated 13-11-90 w.e f. 1-8-1986. Again promoted as Office Superintendent on 1-3-89 and confirmed as Office Superintendent by Order dated 13-11-90 w.e.f. 1 8-90. He was lastly promoted as Sub-Registrar, which post he held on the date of the passing of the order of compulsory retirement on 15-5-90. 14. THE above facts will show that all the adverse entries which were utilised against the petitioner for passing the impugned order of compulsory retirement except for 1990-91 stood washed out on account of promotions given to the petitioner and also on account of the orders of confirmation. Therefore, in view of the consistent view taken by . the Supreme Court in the cases mentioned (supra) it is not possible to uphold the order of compulsory retirement. But before quashing the impugned order of compulsory retirement on this ground, the adverse entry awarded to the petitioner in the year 1990-91 has also to be taken into consideration. 15. Therefore, in view of the consistent view taken by . the Supreme Court in the cases mentioned (supra) it is not possible to uphold the order of compulsory retirement. But before quashing the impugned order of compulsory retirement on this ground, the adverse entry awarded to the petitioner in the year 1990-91 has also to be taken into consideration. 15. ALTHOUGH no arguments have been addressed on this score by the learned State Counsel but it is a settled thing that the order of compulsory retirement is an order which is to be passed by the Appointing Authority on his subjective satisfaction but that satisfaction has to be reached on the basis of material in the Character Roll and Service Book of the concerned incumbent. The order if it is based on some cogent material cannot be challenged on the ground of insufficient of the material as it is for the Appointing Authority to judge the suitability of the employee concerned as to whether the employee should be retained in service or should be retired compulsorily for being a dead wood. At the same time the appointing Authority while making up his mind has to examine the service book and weigh both favourable and adverse entries awarded to the concerned employee. Once a decision is taken on the basis of the service record that decision cannot be challenged for judicial review except on the ground of (i) Absence of material (adverse entries) and (ii) non-application of mind. 16. IN the present case from the facts observed above, there seems no doubt that neither the Screening Committee nor the appointing Authority noticed this fact that in view of petitioner's promotion on higher posts in the years 1979-1989 and 1990 the adverse entries awarded to him earlier to the dates of his promotion lost their sting and the same were not available for judging the suitability of the petitioner for retaining him in service or for compulsorily retiring him in the public interest. The Screening Committee as a matter of fact did not at all care to see any thing else in the service record of the petitioner except the adverse entries; the fact that all of them had not become final as petitioner had challenged them by filing representation which were kept pending and ware decided almost two years after passing of the impugned order of compulsory retirement was also lost sight of by the said authorities. Screening Committee also failed to notice the fact that petitioner had been given promotions in 1979, 1989 and 1990 irrespective of the fact that a large number of adverse entries had been made against the petitioner prior to the date of the passing of the order of promotion. Similarly, the appointing authority in a mechanical manner passed the impugned order of compulsory retirement basing his decision on the recommendations of the Screening Committee obviously because he was the convenor of that Committee. These circumstances go to establish beyond doubt that the order of compulsory retirement which is under challenge in the writ petition was passed by the appointing authority without application of mind and in an arbitrary fashion. Arbitrariness in actions by State or its instrumentalities, which adversely affects the rights of individuals is prohibited by Article 14 of our Constitution. Any order passed arbitrarily whether on subjective satisfaction or on objective considerations is open to judicial review and once the arbitrariness is established on cogent material the order is bound to be quashed Now so far as adverse entry of the year 1991 is concerned, this adverse entry was awarded to the petitioner on 19-1-1991 and was communicated to him by letter dated 6-2-1991. After awarding the said entry to the petitioner, petitioner was not granted any promotion. Since the order of compulsory retirement is passed in public interest on the subjective satisfaction of appointing authority, this entry by itself can form the basis for passing an order of compulsory retirement against the petitioner provided the said entry has become final, but the record shows that a representation against the said entry was also made by the petitioner on 16-2-1991 and this representation of the petitioner was pending on the date of passing of the impugned order of compulsory retirement and was finally rejected by the government by order dated 17-7-93. It is a settled view that an order of compulsory retirement can be based on a single adverse entry but it is also a settled view that an adverse entry if challenged by filing a representation cannot be the basis for passing the order of compulsory retirement unless the said representation is rejected The question however, arises as to how this adverse entry could be considered for passing the order of compulsory retirement against the petitioner in view of the representation which remained pending on the date of passing of the impugned order. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ No. 1993 of 1990 Paras Nath Gupta v. State of U. P. and others decided on . 11-3-19)2 by a Single Judge of this Court. In that case this Court held : "That being so, during the pendency of the said representation the aforesaid adverse entries and the order of punishment could not legally have formed the basis for passing the impugned order." 17. HOWEVER, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Baikuntha Nath Dass v. Chief District Medical Officer (supra) which is also reported in AIR 1992 SC 1020 . The emphasis was laid on para 32 of the report which reads as follows : (i) ......... - (ii) .................. (iii) .................. (iv) The Government (or the Review Committee, as the case may be) shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter of course attaching more importance to record of and performance during the later years. The record to be so considered, would naturally include the entries in the confidential records/character rolls, both favourable and adverse. If a government servant is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding the adverse remarks, such remarks lose their sting, more so, if the promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority. 18. HE also cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of C. D. Ailawadi v. Union of India, 1990 UP LB EC 888. The above decisions cited by the learned counsel for the respondents do not help the case of the respondents. 18. HE also cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of C. D. Ailawadi v. Union of India, 1990 UP LB EC 888. The above decisions cited by the learned counsel for the respondents do not help the case of the respondents. On the other hand, the same helps the case of the petitioner, as the Supreme Court has held that adverse entries awarded prior to the date of promotion are not available for basing an order of compulsory retirement. 19. IN this connection reference may also be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Brij Mohan Singh Chopra v. State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 948 . IN para 7 of the said report in column 2 of the report at page 952 the Supreme Court observed as follows :- "It is now settled that abverse entries, if any, awarded to any employee lose their significance on or after his promotion to a higher post. The adverse entries awarded to the appellant prior to 1968 could not be taken into consideration and therefore the adverse entries for the years 1960-61, 1963-64 and 1964-65 could not legally be taken into consideration in forming the requisite opinion to retire the appellant prematurely from service. 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 consideration. It is possible that a new entrant to a service may have committed mistakes and for that reason he may have earned adverse entries and if those entries of early years of service are taken into consideration for prematurely retiring a Government employees then perhaps no employee would be safe even though he may have brilliant record of service in later years." IN paras 9 and 10 of the report, the Supreme Court also considered the situation where representation is pending against adverse entries communicated to the government servant concerned at the time of consideration by the Appointing Authority to pass an order of compulsory retirement. The Supreme Court further held that it was against the principle of natural justice to base an order of compulsory retirement on adverse entries against which representations are filed and have not been decided. The Supreme Court further held that it was against the principle of natural justice to base an order of compulsory retirement on adverse entries against which representations are filed and have not been decided. The exact words of the Supreme Court may be quoted as follows : "We are of the opinion that the same consideration must apply to a case where the adverse entries are taken into account in retiring an employee prematurely from service. 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 not communicated to him or if communicated representations made against those entries are not considered and disposed of." 20. THUS on overall consideration of the facts and the case law on the points discussed above, I am of the firm view that the order of compulsory retirement under challenge in the writ petition compulsorily retiring the petitioner in exercise of power under Fundamental Rule 56 (c) Vol. II, Parts II to IV is vitiated for being arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The same therefore deserves to be quashed and is, accordingly, quashed and the writ petition is allowed with costs. The result being that the petitioner continues in service without any break and the break in his service caused by the impugned order of compulsory retirement dated 13-11-1991 shall not be taken into account for the purpose of payment of his salary, pension and other allowances including promotions. Petitioner shall be entitled to the payment of his salary which may have fallen due to him with effect from the date his services were terminated as a result of passing of the order of compulsory retirement and he shall also be entitled to payment of all other dues and services benefits which he would normally have received while in service. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service immediately and pay him arrears of his salary and other dues and benefits payable to him till the date of reinstatement within the shortest possible time and in any case not later than two months from the dale of his reinstatement. The respondent shall also pay costs of this writ petition to the petitioner which is assessed at Rs. 300/-