BILAL NAZKI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner filed an O. A. being o. A. No. 276 of 1995 before the Tribunal which has been dismissed, therefore the writ Petition. ( 2 ) THE Writ Petitioner was selected as Telecommunications Inspector by Railway service Commission, Bombay during the year 1961. After completion of training as apprentice Telecommunications Inspector he was absorbed in Bombay Division. Thereafter he was transferred to Sholapur. During the year 1966 consequent upon formation of South Central Railway he became employee of South Central Railway. He was promoted as Chief Inspector (now designated as Signal Inspector ). Then he was promoted as Signal and telecommunications Engineer on 11-3-1976 and was posted at Secunderabad. According to the petitioner, the said post was classified as Group b Junior scale. Then again he was promoted as Divisional Signal and telecommunications Engineer in secunderabad Division. This post, according to the petitioner, was classified as Group b senior scale. The Railway Board appointed the petitioner substantively to the I. R. S signal Engineers Junior Scale with effect from 11-6-1991, He was deputed to J. A grade in the year 1992. On 17-3-93 a communication was given to the petitioner that in public interest he was being retired from service under Rule 1802 (a) of the i. R. E. C Vol. II 1987 Edition as the petitioner had attained the age of 50 years on 31-7-1991. The order of premature retirement was communicated to the petitioner on 31st March, 1993. The petitioner was given an opportunity to submit his representation against the proposed decision of the President. The petitioner submitted his representation against the proposed decision. The respondent No. 3 retired the petitioner from service with effect from 31st March, 1993. The petitioner submitted representation against that decision on 13-4-93. Thereafter the respondent No. 3 informed the petitioner that it was tentatively decided by the competent authority to take him back into service purely on compassionate grounds in a substantive capacity in Junior scale provided he was willing to accept the post so offered. On 19-10-93 the petitioner expressed his unwillingness to accept the post offered in the Junior scale. Thereafter the respondent No. 3 informed the petitioner that it was tentatively decided by the competent authority to take him back into service purely on compassionate grounds in a substantive capacity in Junior scale provided he was willing to accept the post so offered. On 19-10-93 the petitioner expressed his unwillingness to accept the post offered in the Junior scale. On 11-1-94 respondent No. 2 wrote again to the petitioner and informed him that the competent authority was willing to consider him for promotion to the Senior scale after one year provided he joined in the Junior scale Group a and improve his performance to the satisfaction of the superiors. On 27-1-94 the petitioner submitted his representation reiterating his earlier stand. On 18-7-94 the respondent no. 2 vide his proceedings dated 18-7-94 conveyed the decision of the competent authority rejecting the representation of the petitioner and again called him to join in junior scale post. The petitioner conveyed his unwillingness and the matter got almost closed. Thereafter the O. A. was filed. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has made many arguments in challenging the order of retirement. Counter has also been filed. There is no dispute on the facts. The law is settled that once the Government comes to the conclusion that a person has lost his utility he can be prematurely retired. Premature retirement does not create any stigma. In this connection reference can be made to various judgments of the Supreme court, and of this Court in M. Ravi Kumar v. Union of India in which we have gone through the judgments of Supreme Court in baikuntanath Das v. Chief District A Medical officer, Baripada and D. Ramaswami v. State cf Tamil Nadu. There is no problem in accepting the contention of the respondents that if the competent authority is satisfied that an employee has lost his utility he can be removed as dead wood but this is a case which is altogether different. The petitioner was retired from service prematurely as dead wood but he was given a chance to represent against the order retiring him and when he represented the authorities passed orders offering him a lower post. These letters are very important. First letter is dated 7-10-93. The petitioner was retired from service prematurely as dead wood but he was given a chance to represent against the order retiring him and when he represented the authorities passed orders offering him a lower post. These letters are very important. First letter is dated 7-10-93. This letter reads as follows;"with reference to your above quoted appeal to the President of India, it has been tentatively decided by the competent authority to take you back to duty on compassionate grounds in your substantive capacity in Junior scale (Group a ) provided you give your written consent to that effect. If you are willing to be considered as above subject to other conditions governing the matter, your written consent to this effect may please be made and submitted to this office for forwarding it to Railway Board for further necessary action. "the second letter is dated 11-1-94. It reads;"your above quoted representation in reply to competent authority s tentative decision to take you back to duty on compassionate grounds in your substantive capacity in Junior scale (Group A) has been forwarded to railway Board. In reply, Board have advised the decision of the competent authority to the effect that you may, after joining in Junior Scale (Group A) improve upon your performance and if your performance is found to be satisfactory during the next one year you could be considered fro restoration to Senior Scale. In the circumstances, you are advised to convey your willingness early to join in Junior Scale (Gr. A) to enable the same being advised to Railway Board for further orders. "third letter is dated 18-7-94 which is also reproduced;"it has been advised by Railway Board that the President has carefully considered your representations dated 19-10-93 and 27-1-94 on the above subject and having regard to the fact that the tentative decision to reinstate you in service in Junior scale Group A was taken purely on compassionate grounds and not on merits, the competent authority had held that your representations may be rejected being devoid of any merits and that the decision taken earlier should stand. It has also been advised by Railway board that in case you are willing to accept the earlier decision of the competent authority to reinstate you in junior scale (Group A) your written consent to that effect may be obtained and forwarded to them. It has also been advised by Railway board that in case you are willing to accept the earlier decision of the competent authority to reinstate you in junior scale (Group A) your written consent to that effect may be obtained and forwarded to them. You are therefore advised to convey your willingness or otherwise in writing accordingly and sent the same to this office for onward transmission to railway Board for further orders. "these letters sufficiently show that the petitioner was still competent enough and fit enough to discharge his duties. If he was removed as dead wood how can he be offered job lesser in rank than he was holding before his retirement. Therefore, this is not a case of premature retirement, in effect it is a case of reversion. Reversion is punishment. The petitioner could have not been reduced in rank except on charges and after due enquiry, but, he was retired from service prematurely and then offered a lower post which according to the respondents was offered on compassionate grounds. We do not understand, if a person is retired prematurely on the ground of incompetence or on the ground that he has no utility to the department how can he be offered another post and promised a promotion within a year. For these reasons, we find that the petitioner s utility to the department was not lost and therefore the order of premature retirement is bad and cannot be allowed to sustain. ( 4 ) FOR these reasons, we allow the Writ Petition, quash the order of premature retirement and also the order of the tribunal. The petitioner shall be reinstated into service with full back wages and consequential benefits. No order as to costs.