Judgment Shobha Dikshit, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 9.7.1993 contained in Annexure 1 by which the petitioner has been retired compulsorily. The impugned order has been challenged on the ground that the same is illegal, has been passed on extraneous considerations and is based on no material and, therefore, is liable to be quashed. 2. Petitioner is a trained confirmed Consolidation Lekhpal and at the relevant time, he was posted as such in the district Kheri. According to the averments made in the writ petition, he was never awarded any adverse entry in his entire career to the best of his knowledge till the date the impugned order was passed. It has also been stated so by the petitioner on the ground that no adverse entry or adverse material was ever-communicated to him during the aforesaid period. Not only that no adverse entry or adverse material was ever communicated to the petitioner but on the contrary, he was given all his increments regularly every year right from 1.7.1985 to 1.1.1993. He was given selection grade with effect from 1.1.1985. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it has been alleged that the order of compulsory retirement has neither been passed in public interest nor to maintain the efficiency in service and the same, therefore, suffers from the vice of arbitrary exercise of power with ulterior motive. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State Government where it has been stated that the petitioner's service record was not good and he was awarded adverse entries for the years 1979-80, 1987-88, 1988-89, 1990-91 and 1992-93 but it has nowhere been stated in the counter affidavit that the said adverse entries or any of them were ever communicated to the petitioner. The said adverse entries have not even been disclosed in the counter affidavit. Therefore, it is not known as to what kind of adverse entries were awarded to the petitioner. 3. Petitioner has filed the rejoinder-affidavit controverting the averments made in the counter-affidavit and it has been reiterated that no adverse entry was ever communicated to the petitioner. Regarding the adverse entries prior to 1985, it has been stated that since the petitioner was given increment which was due to him with effect from 1.7.1985, therefore. If at all there was any adverse- material earlier, the same stands wiped off. Regarding the adverse entries prior to 1985, it has been stated that since the petitioner was given increment which was due to him with effect from 1.7.1985, therefore. If at all there was any adverse- material earlier, the same stands wiped off. Regarding the other alleged adverse material, the petitioner has reiterated in the rejoinder-affidavit that since increments to which the petitioner was entitled were given to him, right from 1985 till 1.1.1993, therefore, all the adverse material or adverse entry prior to this period losses its sting and cannot be taken to be adverse against the petitioner. 4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order of compulsory retirement primarily on the ground that the same has not been passed in public interest as it is based on no material. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, admittedly no adverse entry or material has ever been communicated to the petitioner nor the same has been produced before the Court through the counter-affidavit. Therefore, the order impugned herein suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and being passed on extraneous considerations. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically submitted that till the filing of the counter-affidavit before this Court, the petitioner was never given an impression in any manner by the opposite parties that his work is not satisfactory. Once the petitioner was getting all his increments at the time when the same became due to him, it could not be said that the opposite parties were not satisfied with the performance of the petitioner. Since the selection grade was given with effect from 1.7.1985 and thereafter increments were given, hence it has been contended that even assuming that there was some uncommunicated adverse material, the same has to be treated to have wiped off and cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of retiring the petitioner compulsorily on the ground that he has become a dead wood or inefficient to perform his duties. In support of the aforesaid contentions, petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions reported in Rajjan Lal Srivastava v. State of U.P., 1994 (2) LCD 639 and Krishan Pal Sonkar v. State of U.P. and another, 1993(2) UPLBEC 1049. In support of the aforesaid contentions, petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions reported in Rajjan Lal Srivastava v. State of U.P., 1994 (2) LCD 639 and Krishan Pal Sonkar v. State of U.P. and another, 1993(2) UPLBEC 1049. In the matter of Rajjan Lal Srivastava, a learned Single Judge of this Court while taking notice of the various decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court by which the law on the subject of compulsory retirement has been laid down and reiterated has held that the power to compulsory retire an employee can only be exercised in public interest where the competent authority comes to a conclusion that such employee does not possess good reputation, he is corrupt and dishonest or is dead wood otherwise not. In this case, no adverse material admittedly has ever been communicated to the petitioner and secondly, he earned his selection grade and other increments timely and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner had lost his utility for which he should be compulsorily retired. In the absence of any material being placed before this Court through the counter-affidavit, it cannot be said as to what is the nature of the adverse material on which the impugned decision has been taken. It has also not been denied by the opposite parties that adverse material/entry was not communicated to the petitioner to put him on guard or to represent against the same. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance on the decision of this Court in the matter of Krishan Pal Sonkar v. State of U.P. (supra) contended that so far as the rule of compulsory retirement in the State of Uttar Pradesh is concerned, it is necessary that the adverse material has to be communicated to the delinquent employee to give him an opportunity to represent against the same and thereafter the competent authority is under an obligation to consider the same before passing any order for compulsory retirement. 5. Learned Standing Counsel, while rebutting the aforesaid contentions, stated that it is not necessary to always communicate the adverse material to the delinquent official and competent authority can, under the settled law, pass the order of compulsory retirement after taking the entire service record into consideration. 5. Learned Standing Counsel, while rebutting the aforesaid contentions, stated that it is not necessary to always communicate the adverse material to the delinquent official and competent authority can, under the settled law, pass the order of compulsory retirement after taking the entire service record into consideration. It has been contended on behalf of the State Government that it is not necessary that adverse remark should be communicated or every remark which could be categorised as adverse be communicated. In support of this contention, learned Standing Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of U.P. v. Behari Lal. AIR 1995 SC 1161 . 6. I have perused this judgment which is a short order and it appears that the same has been passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case. Hon'ble Supreme Court has rendered another decision reported in AIR 1995 SC 111 , wherein it has been held in para 9 as follows : "It is thus settled law that though the order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and the Government employee is entitled to draw all retrial benefits including pension, the Government must exercise its power only in the public interest to effectuate the efficiency of the service. The dead wood need to be removed to augment efficiency. Integrity in public service need to be maintained. The exercise of power of compulsory retirement must not be a haunt on public servant but must act as a check and reasonable measure to ensure efficiency of service and free from corruption and incompetence. The officer would live by reputation built around him. In an appropriate case, there may not be sufficient evidence to take punitive disciplinary action of removal from service. But his conduct and reputation is such that his continuance in service would be a menace in public service and injurious to public interest. The entire service record or character rolls or confidential reports maintained would furnish the backdrop material for consideration by the Government or the Review Committee or the appropriate authority. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances alone, the Government should form the opinion that the Government Officer needs to be compulsorily retired from service. The entire service record or character rolls or confidential reports maintained would furnish the backdrop material for consideration by the Government or the Review Committee or the appropriate authority. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances alone, the Government should form the opinion that the Government Officer needs to be compulsorily retired from service. Therefore, the entire service record, more particularly the latest, would form the foundation for the opinion and furnish the base to exercise the power under the relevant rule to compulsorily retire a Government Officer. When an officer reaching the age of compulsory retirement, as was pointed out by this Court, he could neither seek alternative appointment nor meet the family burdens with the pension or other benefits he gets and thereby he would be subjected to great hardship and family would be greatly affected. Therefore, before exercising the power, the competent appropriate authority must weigh pros and cons and balance the public interest as against the individual interest. On total evaluation of the entire record of service, if the Government or the Governmental authority forms the opinion that in the public interest the officer needs to be retired compulsorily, the court may not interfere with the exercise of such bona fide exercise of power but the court has power and duty to exercise the power of judicial review not as a court of appeal but in its exercise of Judicial review to consider whether the power has been properly exercised or is arbitrary or vitiated either by mala fide or actuated by extraneous consideration or arbitrary In retiring the Government officer compulsorily from service." I have persued all the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for both the parties and the judgment in the matter of S. Ramchandra Raju (supra). In the light of these decisions as also the facts and circumstances of this case where admittedly no adverse material was ever communicated to the petitioner nor the same has been placed before the Court and on the contrary, the grant of selection grade and other increments to the petitioner from time to time, I am of the view that the order impugned herein is based on no material and, therefore, the relevant provisions applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh, i.e. Fundamental Rule 56(2)(b) of U.P. Fundamental Rules (Amendment) Act, 1976 stands violated as no opportunity was given to the petitioner to meet the adverse material existing on record against him. Admittedly, no opportunity of making a representation against the said material was provided to the petitioner before passing the impugned order of compulsory retirement. In these circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. 7. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 9.7.1993 contained in Annexure 1 retiring the petitioner compulsorily is hereby quashed and the petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits of reinstatement, payment of arrears of salary, increments etc. No order as to costs.