JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Sharma, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 19.3.1990, by which he had been compulsorily retired by the District Magistrate, Raibareily. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the appellate authority i.e. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, which was also dismissed vide order dated 26.3.1993. 3. As per the petitioner, he had entered in the services as Collection Amin in June, 1956 and became permanent in the year 1963. The work, conduct and performance of the petitioner have remained satisfactory throughout his service career. Only in the year 1986, the petitioner was awarded an adverse entry for making insufficient recovery of the Government dues. Except this adverse entry, nothing was indicated against the petitioner during his 27 years’ long services. The said order of compulsory retirement is arbitrary and mala fide and is against the relevant provisions of the fundamental rules. 4. The learned Standing Counsel has resisted the writ petition. He has led the Court towards the paras 8, 9 and 11 of the counter affidavit, to demonstrate that the work, conduct and performance of the petitioner have remained unsatisfactory. He was a seasonal Collection Amin and his recovery was not up to mark. On the recommendations of a duly constituted Screening Committee, the petitioner was compulsorily retired on 19.3.1990. Therefore, the petitioner was unfit and unsuitable for further retention in the services. 5. In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has denied that his recovery was not upto the mark. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the material on record of the writ petition. 7. The material against the petitioner has been indicated in paras 8, 9 and 11 of the counter affidavit. These paras are quoted below : 8- Þ;g fd ;kfpdk ds izLrj 6 esa dFku iw.kZ:i ls vLohdkj gSA ;kph dks o"kZ 1986 ds ipkr laxzg dk;Z gsrq dbZ ckj izfrdwy izfof"V ,oa psrkofu;ka nh x;h gSA 9- ;g fd ;kfpdk esa izLrj&7 dk dFku Lohdkj ugha gSA ;kph dks laxzg dk;Z esa mnklhurk cjrus ij fu;ekuqlkj LØhfuax desVh xfBr djds lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k x;kA 11- ;g fd ;kfpdk ds izLrj&1 ds laca/k esa dguk gS fd ;kph dks fu;ekuqlkj lEiw.kZ tkap djus ds ipkr LØhfuax desVh dh vk[;k ij vfuok;Z :i ls lsoko`Ÿk fd;k x;k gSAÞ 8. From the versions of the respondents, it emerges that the petitioner was compulsorily retired on the basis of only one adverse entry and poor recovery work. The submissions made in the counter affidavit are vague and bald. The material has been placed on record relating to adverse entry and the warning awarded against the petitioner. There is nothing on record to prove that the petitioner was remiss in discharging his duties. The opposite parties have not demonstrated before the Court as to what was the quota for recovery fixed for the Seasonal Collection Amins in a particular year or the amount of revenue collected by him. On the basis of recovery of one year, the petitioner, a Seasonal Collection Amin, cannot be compulsorily retired, ignoring his 27 years’ long services. The appointing authority has to make overall assessment of complete service record. An employee cannot be retired on the basis of only one adverse entry or on the basis of a particular poor performance. The petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the judgment reported in 2001(1) ESC 340 (All), Dinesh Kumar Asthana v. Collector, Azamgarh and others, and an another judgment rendered by this Court in W.P. No. 6296 (S/S) of 2005, Chandar Prasad Verma v. State of U.P. and others, which was decided on 6.1.2006. This Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Asthana (supra) has held that : “This Court has no means to find out whether the recovery in a particular year with respect to the petitioner was low for reason other than his own efficiency. It is very relevant circumstance while considering efficiency of Seasonal Collection Amin. For example, recovery is not possible beyond a certain limit for various factors and reasons like orders from Court, the total extent of recovery to be made in one’s area and/or whether Government itself kept recovery in abeyance due to famine, flood, drought, etc. These will be relevant consideration to be taken into account and a Seasonal Collection Amin, being put to sufferance for reasons beyond his control, cannot be non-suited for low recovery as it does not reflect at all upon his efficiency." 9. Here in the present case, the petitioner has been compulsorily retired. There may be some circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner. The petitioner has put forth his versions in the rejoinder affidavit. 10. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. Here in the present case, the petitioner has been compulsorily retired. There may be some circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner. The petitioner has put forth his versions in the rejoinder affidavit. 10. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned orders dated 19.3.1990 and 26.3.1993. 11. The petitioner has remained out of employment from 19.3.1990 to 15.2.1996. Since the petitioner has not worked during this six years’ period, as such applying the principles laid down by Hon. the Supreme Court of India in the judgments as reported in (2005) 5 SCC 124 , Allahabad Jal Sansthan v. Daya Shankar Rai and another, (2003) 9 SCC 221 , Hissar Central Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Kali Ram and (2003) 6 SCC 141 , M.P. State Electricity Board v. Jarina Bee (Smt.), this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner may be paid Rs. 1.00 Lakhs as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards expenses for pursuing legal remedy in this Court for the last 13 years. This amount, which comes to Rs. 1,10,000/-, shall be paid to the petitioner within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The aforesaid period, during which the petitioner remained out of employment, shall be treated as period spent on duty for the purpose of calculating pension. Since the impugned orders have been quashed, the other consequences shall follow. Petition Allowed. ———