P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. ( 1 ) [his Lordships after stating the facts of the case and further observed :] stated above, the order of compulsory retirement suffers from non-application of mind and arbitrariness, and therefore, the same deserves to be struck down. ( 2 ) IT has been provided in the Resolution at Annexure-A under"criteria to be followed"at page 15 of the petition, which provides as under :"1. While reviewing the cases of officers attaining the age of fifty years, the following points should be taken into consideration; (1) Whether any disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated against the officer ? In case of a Government servant whose integrity is in doubt, it would be appropriate to consider him for premature retirement irrespective of the assessment of his ability or efficiency in work. In other words even if an officers performance is good, he is efficient and physically and mentally fit, he can be prematurely retired, if Competent Authority comes to the conclusion that his integrity is doubtful. (ii) Whether the officer is physically as well as mentally fit for retention in service. (iii) Whether the whole service record of the officer is atleast satisfactory. If an officer is physically and mentally fit and has earned satifactory confidential report i. e. , not below the average standard, he should not be prematurely retired. "in fact, it has been stated in the aforesaid criteria that if the service records of the officer is not below average standard, he should not be prematurely retired. If the officer is physically and mentally fit and has earned satisfactory confidential Reports i. e. , not below the average standard, he should not be prematurely retired. That would be applicable regarding the officer attaining the age of 50 years. However, regarding the service record is concerned, it has been provided that the Confidential Reports for the last 8 to 10 years should be good. However, said procedure is made applicable when the case of an employee is to be reviewed at the age of 55 years. However, since the case of the petitioner is reviewed at the age of 50, the criteria as stated above would apply. Therefore, also even as per the said criteria which is required to be followed, the petitioners case does not fall in the same. However, since the case of the petitioner is reviewed at the age of 50, the criteria as stated above would apply. Therefore, also even as per the said criteria which is required to be followed, the petitioners case does not fall in the same. Even on the said ground also the order compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service is required to be set aside. ( 3 ) LEARNED Advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Brij Mohan Singh Chopra v. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1987 SC 948 and in paras 8 and 9 the Apex Court has held as under :"we would now examine the appellantsservice record for the last 10 years. On a perusal of the same, we find that the appellant was awarded adverse remarks for the year 1971-72 and 1972-73 and for the rest of the years he was not awarded any adverse remarks. On the other hand for the years 1974-75 and 1975-76 the reporting officer rated him as a very good officer although the reviewing officer treated him as average. In 1976-77 the reporting officer rated him as a good officer while the reviewing officer rated him as an average. For the year 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80 the reviewing officer assessed his work and conduct good. During the last 5 years of his service the appellant had earned good entries which are commendable in nature. Except the two entries awarded to him for the years 1971-72, 1973-74 the appellant has not earned any adverse entry reflecting upon his work and conduct. It is significant to note that in none of these entries his integrity was doubted. So far as the adverse entries for the year 1971-72 and 1972-73 are concerned the appellant has asserted that even though he had filed representations in accordance with the rules against those entries, his representations had not been considered or disposed of, but the appropriate authority considered those entries against him. In the counter- affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it is conceded that the appellant had filed representations against the aforesaid two entries but the two representations could not be disposed of as the representations were not traceable on the Government file. In the counter- affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it is conceded that the appellant had filed representations against the aforesaid two entries but the two representations could not be disposed of as the representations were not traceable on the Government file. The fact however remarks that the appellant had filed representations against the aforesaid adverse entries and the receipt of the representations is admitted by the Government but those representations were kept pending. ( 4 ) THE question which falls for consideration is whether the aforesaid two entries could be taken into consideration in forming the requisite opinion to retire prematurely the appellant from service. There is no doubt that whenever an adverse entry is awarded to a Government servant, it must be communicated to him. The object and purpose underlying the communication is to afford an opportunity to the employee to improve his work and conduct and to make representation to the authority concerned against those entries. If such representation is made, it is imperative that the authority should consider the representation with a view to determine as to whether the contents of the adverse entries are justified or not. Making of a representation is a valuable right to a Government employee and if the representation is not considered, it is bound to affect him in his service career, as in Government service grant of increment, promotion and ultimately premature retirement all depend on the scrutiny of the service records, in Gurdial Singh Fiji v. State of Punjab, 1979 (3) SCR 518 : AIR 1979 SC 1622 the appellant therein was denied promotion on account of certain adverse entries against which he had made representation to the Government but for some some reason or the other those representations could not be considered or disposed of. In view of those adverse entries he was not selected for promotion. This Court while considering the effect of non-consideration of the representation observed :"the principle is well settled that in accordance with the rules of natural justice, an adverse report in confidential roll cannot be acted upon to deny promotional opportunities unless it is communicated to the person concerned so that he has an opportunity to improve his work and conduct or to explain the circumstances leading to the report. Such an opportunity is not an empty formality, its object, partially, being to enable the superior authorities to decide on a consideration of the explanation offered by the person concerned, whether the adverse report is justified. Unfortunately, for some reason or another, not arising out of any fault on the part of the appellant, though the adverse report was communicated to him, the Government has not been able to consider his explanation and decide whether the report was justified. " ( 5 ) IN the instant case as stated earlier from 1-4-1975 to 17-2-1976 and 1-4-1983 to 31-3-1984 the entries in the service record of the petitioner were "good" and from 1-4-1983 to 31-3-1983 the adverse remarks were not communicated. Therefore, it is presumed that it was not adverse to the petitioner and from 31-3-1982 to 27-12-1982 and from 1-4-1983 to 31-3-1984 the remark was average and for the period from 1-4-1985 to 31-3-1986 the remark was fair. The petitioner was not given any opportunity to make representation against the said remark for the period between 1-4-1985 to 31-3-1986 and without allowing the petitioner to make representation within the time-limit prescribed, the impugned order was passed, and therefore, that entry could not have been taken into consideration before passing the order. Since the Government has not filed any reply it is not possible to come to the conclusion which part of the service record or which entry in the service record of the petitioner was taken into consideration for passing the impugned order. It is also not shown as to what other consideration weighed with the Government in passing the impugned order. Even for the last entry, the explanation of the petitioner was not sought for and he was not allowed to make a representation before passing the impugned order. Therefore, on the aforesaid ground also the impugned order is required to be struck down as it suffers from unreasonableness and suffers from the vice of arbitrariness. ( 6 ) SAID order has been passed on extraneous consideration without following the procedure prescribed by the Government for review, and therefore, the same shall have to be set aside. Even as per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner cannot be branded as a dead wood and it cannot be said that it is not in public interest to continue him on the post in question. Even as per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner cannot be branded as a dead wood and it cannot be said that it is not in public interest to continue him on the post in question. On the aforesaid ground also the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside. It is also to be noted that the petitioner was not subjected to any departmental inquiry proceedings when he was ordered to be retired compulsorily. The physical and mental condition of the petitioner were good and he was fit to be continued in service. ( 7 ) THUS, the total effect is that the petitioner will be treated to be in continuous Government service till the age of his superannuation. It has been stated at the Bar by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that he has reached his superannuation age of 58 years long back. Therefore, the respondents are directed to give to the petitioner all consequential benefits which otherwise he would have been entitled to if he had remained in service upto 58 years. Since the petitioner has already retired on reaching his age of superannuation which is 58 years, there is no question of reinstating the petitioner in service. Accordingly the respondents are directed to give to the petitioner the benefits of his pay and all other consequential benefits upto the date of his superannuation as he will be treated in service upto that age without any break and he will also be entitled to salary, allowances and such other benefits as may be admissible to him under the Rules. If the petitioner has accepted the amount equivalent to his pay and allowances for 3 months in lieu of 3 months notice, the same may be returned to the respondents or adjusted while calculating theamount of difference required to be paid to the petitioner on the basis of this judgment. ( 8 ) SINCE the petition is pending since 1987 the respondents are directed to comply with the directions contained in this judgment within two months from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. .