( 1 ) THE petitioners service was dispensed with in exercise of rule 56 of Financial hand Book Vol.-II Part-II by an order dated 20th july, 1990 containing in Annexure-I to the writ petition. Mr. A. R. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the said order on the ground that by reason of the Govt. order dated 21st December, 1989, such dispensation of service could be made under the said rule only in accordance with the procedure laid down therein. According to him, it could be done only after obtaining prior approval of the commissioner. In the present case, according to him no such approval has been obtained. ( 2 ) MR. P. K. Singhal appearing with Mr. Murlidhar learned counsel for the respondents oppose Mr. Dubey. According to Mr. Murlidhar, there is nothing on record to show that the prior approval of the Commissioner was obtained. But however, according to him, the Government Order is not mandatory and therefore, no observance thereof cannot vitiate the impugned order. He further contends that because of the time limit of 25 days for completion of the process and absence of approval of the Commissioner within the stipulated time period shall be deemed to be the grant of the approval. He further contends that consideration is dependent on the subjective satisfaction of the appointing authority and to the suitability of the employee to be retained in service. Here the appointing authority having found it fit to dispense with the service, the Court should not interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction since the petitioner has not alleged malafide against the appointing authority. Therefore, this writ petition should be dismissed. ( 3 ) I have heard both the counsel at length. ( 4 ) THE Government Order dated 21st December, 1989 was issued by the Government in respect of scrutinising of persons for dispensing with service after attainment of 58 years but before attainment of superannuation in terms of Rule 56 of the Financial hand Book. It provides that in respect of persons outside the centralised service of the Municipal Authorities may be processed in the manner prescribed therein. It provides that in respect of persons outside the centralised service of the Municipal Authorities may be processed in the manner prescribed therein. Admittedly, no such process as prescribed in the Government dated 21st December, 1989 relating to obtaining of approval of the Commissioner or any other Higher authority is provided in respect of the application of Rule 56 of the financial Hand Book relating to a government servant. Such process has been prescribed specifically for the Municipal Authorities. There is , admittedly, a difference in the characteristic and status of the appointing authority between the appointing authority of a government Servant whereas the appointing authority in a municipal office is normally the Chairman who is an elected representative of the people and not a government servant. There is a difference of the characteristics in the matter of accountability in between a government servant and the elected representative heading the Municipal Authority. Therefore , the Government thought it fit that there should be some safeguard or safety valve in respect of exercise of Rule 56 of the Financial Hand Book in relation to the service in the Municipal Office of the persons who are outside the purview of the centralised service. While Rule 56 is being attracted to such persons, the Government in its wisdom thought it fit to provide a safety valve and therefore, it was provided that such action can be taken against a municipal servant outside the purview of centralised service only after obtaining approval of the commissioner. It has been provided that there should be a Screening committee headed by the appointing authority being the Chairman and two of the members who had been empowered to recommend the necessity of despensing of service after scrutinising the service record. It is only an authority given for recommendation. The final order can be passed by the Chairman/appointing Authority only after obtaining the approval of the Commissioner. It is not contended by Mr. Murlidhar that the Government Order does not have any legal force. But he contends that it is only an administrative instruction in the from of executive advice and as such, it is not mandatory and binding. But the said contention does not find any support from the text of the Government Order which clearly indicates the purpose, object and intention for issuing such Government Order. But he contends that it is only an administrative instruction in the from of executive advice and as such, it is not mandatory and binding. But the said contention does not find any support from the text of the Government Order which clearly indicates the purpose, object and intention for issuing such Government Order. The government order has been issued within the power conferred on the government in respect of persons employed in non-centralised service under the Municipal Authorities. If such an order is issued within the jurisdiction, scope and ambit of the power conferred on the executive in respect of a particular purpose with particular object providing a safeguard alongwith the procedure to be followed in that event it cannot be said that is only directory. When it has provided that a Screening Committee has to be formed with the persons mentioned in the said order and a particular procedure is prescribed in that event, it has to be followed as it has been provided. The non obtaining of approval cannot be said to be a formality or a technical process. In fact the intention behind the procedure prescribed in paragraph 3 of the said Government Order was to provide a safeguard or safety valve. When in specifically provides that dispensation of service under this rule could be done only after obtaining approval from the Commissioner on the recommendation of the screening committee in that event it cannot be interpreted to mean anything otherwise and non-observance thereof said to be a technical fault to the extent of irregularity. In fact is is the jurisdiction that is conferred on the Chairman to dispense with the service without following other procedure even before superannuation only in an exceptional circumstances. Such action is a discretionary one and as such a safeguard was felt necessary so that the discretion may not be absolute one and is scrutinised. This question of approval is not an embargo but is a control exercised by the Government. This is only for the purpose of providing checks and balance or proper exercise of the power conferred by Rule 56 which is otherwise an extra ordinary power to be exercised in an extra ordinary situation for which an extra ordinary safeguard is provided. In such circumstances, it is not possible for me to agree with the contention of Mr. Murlidhar. In such circumstances, it is not possible for me to agree with the contention of Mr. Murlidhar. ( 5 ) THUS in the absence of approval of the Commissioner, the dispensation of service of the petitioner by the impugned order contained in Annexure-I to the writ petitioner cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed and is accordingly, quashed ltd. A writ certiorari do accordingly issue. ( 6 ) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner was 53 years old when the order was passed. The petitioner must have attained the age of superannuation. Mr. Murlidhar therefore, submits that in such circumstance, the petitioner would be entitled only to back wages or arrears of salary as the case may be. He contends that the petitioner did not work therefore, the Court should consider the question of payment of salary to the extent of 50% since the amount would be paid to the petitioner in a lumpsum. ( 7 ) MR. A. R. Dubey on the other contends that the petitioner has suffered the agony of dispensing with service and has suffered enormously in respect of financial stringency on account of non payment of salary continuously for a long period and the social humiliation on account of such dispensation of service for which he claims compensation for the injury suffered by the petitioner alongwith interest payable on the salary due. ( 8 ) ON this question both of them argued at length. After hearing both the counsel and balancing the situation, it seem that justice would be served if the petitioner is awarded full back wages for the period till the date of superannuation alongwith all other service benefits without any compensation or interest as the case may be. ( 9 ) IN the circumstances, it is hereby declared that the petitioner shall be deemed to be in service and shall retire on attainment of superannuation with all service benefits. The respondents shall ensure payment of back wages as well as retirement benefits as admissible in law to the petitioner as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Let writ of mandamus do accordingly issue. ( 10 ) THE writ petitioner is, therefore, disposed of. However, there will be no order as to costs. Let writ of mandamus do accordingly issue. ( 10 ) THE writ petitioner is, therefore, disposed of. However, there will be no order as to costs. ( 11 ) LET a certified copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges. .