S. K. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) BY means of this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of compulsory retirement dated 21. 5. 1980 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), passed by opposite party No. 2 and the order dated 1. 4. 1981 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) passed by Administrative Judge of the Honble High Court. ( 2 ) PETITIONER was appointed in the officiating capacity Apprentice (Clerk) w. e. f. 2. 1. 1946 in the civil Court, Lucknow who was confirmed on the said post on 16. 10. 1952. In due course of time petitioner was promoted and was allowed to officiate as copyist on 18. 2. 1954 and thereafter by passage of time, petitioner was promoted as Reader/ Munsarim and at the time when the impugned order was passed, petitioner was working as officiating Reader in the Court of Munsif magistrate, Lucknow. ( 3 ) IT has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that order as passed by the respondent No. 2 on 21. 5. 1980 compulsorily retiring the petitioner is arbitrary, perverse and lacks in bonafide. It has been further argued that there exists no material on the basis of which an opinion can be formed that continuance of the petitioner is not in the public Interest. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order is punitive in nature. To strengthen the submission, learned counsel for the petitioner takes the Court to the" pleadings as has been set forth in the writ petition. It has been stated in the writ petition that petitioner has entered into service in the year 1946 and till December. 1975. there has been absolutely no adverse entry in the character roll of the petitioner and all the entries were good. It is only in the year 1976 that two adverse entries were made in the character roll of the petitioner in very quick succession by the then District Judge Sri B. L. Goel. Giving of the adverse entries by the then District Judge within a span of three months, after the petitioner had completed 30 years of unblemished and clean record was motivated as the petitioner being an active member of the local Ministerial staff Association has to Intervene in the ministerial staff welfare. In fact against the then District judge Sri B. L. Goel. In fact against the then District judge Sri B. L. Goel. on account of his harassing attitude besides the employees who raised their grievances, the lawyers had also done strike. Petitioner all the time being active member of the ministerial staff association has to accompany Shyam Sunder Lal Srivastava who was Secretary, in respect to the grievance of the employees who went on strike against the attitude of the learned District Judge upon which a message was received from the High Court through its registrar about doing the needful, which has been detailed in para 6 of the writ petition. It is thereafter, the said Sri B. L. Goel was transferred from district Lucknow. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 29. 1. 1977 and thereafter in March, 1980, the Screening Committee met for considering the continuance of employees working in the Judgeship who has crossed fifty years but inspite of the aforesaid two adverse entries which was given by Sri B. L. Goel, the district Judge, petitioner was found to be worth of being retained in service. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that it is in respect to an Incident dated 20. 4. 1980, while examination for the recruitment of the ministerial staff was going on account of some untoward situation, the members of the screening committee and the then District Judge Sri A. B. Mathur became annoyed against the petitioner and Shyam Sunder Lal Srivastava, office-bearer of the Ministerial staff Association and thus petitioner as well as Shyam Sunder Lal Srivastava both have been taken to task and by the impugned exercise both were directed to be compulsory retired. According to the submission of the learned counsel, except two adverse entries given in quick succession of three months in the year 1976 by the then District Judge which has been demonstrated to be not fair, there exists no adverse material against the petitioner and. therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners continuance was not in the public interest. Lastly, it has been submitted that the action of compulsory retirement of Shyam Sunder Lal Srivastava whose case was identically situated have been finally allowed by this Court on 2. 3. 1998 vide Writ petition No, 770 of 1982. On the aforesaid premises, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Impugned order of compulsory retirement as passed against the petitioner be quashed. 3. 1998 vide Writ petition No, 770 of 1982. On the aforesaid premises, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Impugned order of compulsory retirement as passed against the petitioner be quashed. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents in response to the aforesaid submissions in the light of the facts so stated in the counter-affidavit argues that action has been taken against the petitioner on consideration of entire facts and totality of the entire situation and therefore, no interference is required. ( 5 ) IN the light of the aforesaid submission as has come across the bar, the pleadings as has been set forth before this Court and the material as has been placed, have been examined. ( 6 ) NO doubt, the question of compulsory retirement of a Government servant is certainly with the domain of the concerned authority but this Court as a measure of effective check to the arbitrary, perverse and mala fide action on the part of the respondents has a right to examine the bona fide in the action of the respondents. The law in this respect have been analysed by several decisions of this Court as well as the Apex Court. Reference can be made to the decision in S. Ram chandra Raju v. State of Orissa, 1994 Supp 13) SCC 424. decision given in W. P. No. 1551 (SB)of 1992, Chandra Shekhar Singh v. State of U. P. , dated 20th December, 2000. ( 7 ) ON the facts of the present case, it appears that the petitioner has unblemished clean record of last 30 years and It is only two adverse entries which were given by the then District Judge in the year 1976 in quick succession of about three months exists. Even after giving of two adverse entries, screening committee which met to consider the petitioners continuance, on 29. 1. 1977 and March. 1980, but the petitioners continuance in service was found to be of worth. In view of this, it cannot be said that in May, 1980. the continuance of the petitioner in service became so detrimental to the public Interest that it was decided to compulsorily retire the petitioner. In the writ petition specific assertion has been made in respect to the Incident dated 20th-April, 1980 on account of which the impugned action has been taken against the petitioner. the continuance of the petitioner in service became so detrimental to the public Interest that it was decided to compulsorily retire the petitioner. In the writ petition specific assertion has been made in respect to the Incident dated 20th-April, 1980 on account of which the impugned action has been taken against the petitioner. On the facts of the present case, it appears that the petitioner and Shyam Sunder Lal Srivastava both being connected with the activities of the local Ministerial Staff Association were ordered to be compulsorily retired in identical situation. The judgment of this Court dated 2. 3. 1998, as has been given in Writ Petition No. 770 of 1982 in the writ petition of Shyam Sunder Lal Srivastava has been placed on record along with rejoinder-affidavit which shows that the incident of 20th april, 1980, has been referred by this Court in the said judgment and after consideration in detail, the bonafide in the action of respondent matter of compulsory retirement has been examined. By detailed consideration in respect to various aspects on which compulsory retirement can be ordered, the matter was examined by this Court on analysis of series of decisions given by the Apex Court as well of this Court and decision as has been rendered in the writ petition of Shyam Sunder Lal Srivastava as appended as Annexure to the rejoinder-affidavit, this Court feels that the action against the petitioner for compulsorily retiring him was not bona fide and otherwise also on the material so exists against the petitioner. It was an arbitrary and perverse action. On the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that the continuance of the petitioner was not in public interest. ( 8 ) IN view of the aforesaid analysis, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The Impugned order dated 31. 5. 1980 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) as passed by the respondent No. 2 and the order dated 1. 4. 1981 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) passed by Administrative Judge of this court are hereby quashed. As the petitioner has died during the pendency of this writ petition, the heirs so substituted will be entitled to get the benefits of this judgment in respect to the consequential benefits. .