JUDGMENT 1. The appellant who was working as an Assistant Grade-II, I.T.I., Chhatarpur was compulsorily retired on 19.11.2003 being aggrieved by which he had filed W.P. No. (S) 2824/03 which has been dismissed by order dated 10.04.2008 against which he has filed this writ appeal under the provisions of section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khandpeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005. 2. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that the order of compulsory retirement of the appellant should have been set aside, in view of the circular issued by the State Government dated 20.03.2003 as the criteria for compulsory retirement had been diluted and it was specifically provided that no employee would be compulsorily retired on the ground of incompetence alone. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to examine this aspect and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. It is also contended that service record of the petitioner did not warrant compulsory retirement. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length. 4. From a perusal of the service record of the petitioner which has been reproduced by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 5 of the impugned order dated 10.04.2008, it is apparent that there was deterioration in the petitioner’s grading in the last five years and that his service record was not satisfactory during this period, and therefore, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in this regard. 5. As far as contention of the learned Senior counsel for the appellant regarding criteria for compulsory retirement as amended by circular dated 20.03.2003, is concerned, it is apparent from a perusal thereof that the criteria prescribed in clause 4 of the previous circular dated 22.08.2000 has been modified and it has been provided that an employee shall not ordinarily be compulsorily retired if his service record, with specific reference to the last five years, is found to be satisfactory or that he has been given promotion during the last five years service and his performance on the promoted post is satisfactory only on the ground of incompetence ¼v{kerk½- 6. Apparently and undisputedly, the service record of the petitioner of the last five years was not satisfactory and in such circumstances, the contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant that he has been compulsorily retired only on the ground of incompetence, is factually incorrect and is accordingly rejected. We find no reason for interference in the order of the learned Single Judge. 7. It is stated by the learned Senior counsel for the appellant that the retiral dues of the appellant have not been finalized by the respondents till date. 8. As the aforesaid issue is not a part of the present petition, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the same, it is observed that in case the respondents/authorities have deferred finalization of the retiral dues of the appellant on account of pendency of the present writ appeal, they shall proceed further in doing so, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.