Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 157 (GUJ)

M. G. PAI v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2013-03-14

C.L.SONI

body2013
JUDGMENT C. L. SONI, J. The petitioner has challenged order of compulsory retirement dated 7-1-1993 and also the communication dated 8-1-1993 whereby he was relieved from service. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner initially joined service of the respondents on 23-3-1966 as Electrical Sub-Inspector Class III, and thereafter, was promoted in the year 1973 as Assistant Electrical Inspector, Class II. He was further promoted in the year 1980 to the post of Electrical Inspector, Class I. Said post he held upto 12-1-1993. It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was to complete 50 years of age on 30th September, 1992. As per the circular dated 15-5-1970, the process of premature retirement was to start six months before the petitioner attains the age of 50 years. However, it was not adhered to and the petitioner was prematurely retired by order dated 7-1-1993. It is the further case of the petitioner that the entire service record of the petitioner is satisfactory. The petitioner was twice promoted and he was communicated adverse remarks only for the period from 1-4-1988 to 31-3-1989. Against such adverse remarks, the petitioner had made representation. It is the further case of the petitioner that after the above adverse remarks, the petitioners made efforts to overcome deficiencies pointed out in the adverse remarks, and therefore, in subsequent years of 1989-1990, 1990-1991 and 1991-1992, no adverse remarks were communicated to the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that the work of the petitioner was found very satisfactory in subsequent years, and therefore, on solitary adverse remarks for the year 1988-1989, the petitioner could not have been compulsorily retired. The petitioner has further alleged that the petitioner was served with the charge-sheet dated 23-7-1990 pertaining to the incident of 1986 of alleged demand of bribe of Rs. 1000/- in conspiracy with the Electrical Sub-Inspector from one Mr. Indravadan R. Shah. The petitioner replied the said charge-sheet. Since, such reply was found formidable one, the above charge-sheet was amended by memo dated 18-12-1992. Copy of the charge-sheet dated 23-7-1990 and the memo dated 18-12-1992 amending the charge-sheet are found at Annexures 'E' and 'F' respectively. It appears that the petitioner has amended the petition so as to bring on record the development which has taken place after the order of compulsory retirement passed against him. Copy of the charge-sheet dated 23-7-1990 and the memo dated 18-12-1992 amending the charge-sheet are found at Annexures 'E' and 'F' respectively. It appears that the petitioner has amended the petition so as to bring on record the development which has taken place after the order of compulsory retirement passed against him. It is stated in the amended Paragraph 8A that in respect of the above charge-sheet, the petitioner came to be exonerated in the inquiry. Above said inquiry had continued after the petitioner was prematurely retired. The petitioner has further alleged that such charges are considered even for making order of premature retirement, and therefore, without following principles of natural justice, such order of premature retirement could not have been passed against the petitioner. 2. The petition is resisted by the respondents by filing affidavit-in-reply on 20th July, 1999 inter alia stating that there is no question of following the instructions contained in Circular dated 15-5-1970. It is further stated that the adverse remarks contained in the C.R. for the year 1986-1987 included very serious remarks for the entire performance of the petitioner. Such remarks were confirmed after considering the representation of the petitioner. It is further stated that the adverse remarks contained in C.R. for the year 1988-1989 were also communicated to the petitioner and confirmed after considering his representation. It is further stated that in addition to the adverse remarks, integrity of the Government servant, is also required to be considered and such remarks are not to be communicated to the Government servant concerned as per Government Resolution dated 31-3-1989. It is further stated that as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, an order of compulsory retirement is not punishment nor does it involve any stigma, and therefore, there is no base for departmental inquiry. It is further stated that for deciding the question of premature retirement of the petitioner by review committee, it has been specifically considered to ignore his involvement in the cases for which departmental inquiries have been initiated. 3. The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the aforesaid reply and amongst other things, the petitioner has pointed out that to circumvent the outcome of the departmental inquiry, the respondents have resorted to shortcut of prematurely retiring the petitioner. 3. The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the aforesaid reply and amongst other things, the petitioner has pointed out that to circumvent the outcome of the departmental inquiry, the respondents have resorted to shortcut of prematurely retiring the petitioner. The petitioner has pointed out that in addition to the adverse remarks, if the integrity of the petitioner was to be considered, it was expected to make the petitioner know about anything against the integrity of the petitioner. It is stated that the integrity of the petitioner has never been doubted, but in fact, his work has been appreciated. 4. I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Learned Advocate Mr. Nikhil Kariel appearing for M/s. Tanna Associates for the petitioner submitted that though the order of compulsory retirement is stated to have been passed on the basis of adverse remarks against the petitioner, however, it is a short-cut adopted by the respondent to put an end to the service of the petitioner for the charges for which departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner. Mr. Kariel submitted that the adverse remarks relied on by the respondents for compulsorily retiring the petitioner were not such which could have warranted order of compulsory retirement Mr. Kariel submitted that the petitioner has been exonerated in the departmental inquiries initiated against the petitioner, and therefore, order of compulsory retirement based on adverse entries which were not as regards integrity of the petitioner cannot stand scrutiny of law. Mr. Kariel submitted that the C.Rs. written by the immediate officer of the petitioner for the year 1991-1992 were bereft of any adverse remarks and in fact, in the said C.Rs., there are positive remarks in favour of the petitioner, and therefore, adverse entries for the year 1988-1989, 1989-1990 which were of general vague nature about the capability of the petitioner to take immediate decision and about confusing nature of the petitioner could not be the basis for passing the order of compulsory retirement. Mr. Kariel submitted that the adverse entries relied on by the respondent for passing the order of compulsory retirement were not such which could be said to have established that the petitioner has become a dead-wood to continue him in the department. Mr. Kariel submitted that the adverse entries relied on by the respondent for passing the order of compulsory retirement were not such which could be said to have established that the petitioner has become a dead-wood to continue him in the department. He submitted that the order of compulsory retirement is in fact punitive one because there were already departmental inquiries pending against the petitioner and the pendency of such departmental inquiries against the petitioner is considered by the respondent for passing the order of compulsory retirement against the petitioner. Since, the charges against the petitioner in the departmental inquiries were not possible to be proved by the respondents, the respondents resorted to passing of the order of compulsory retirement and such action of the respondent in adopting short-cut to put an end to the service of the petitioner is nothing but punitive in nature, and therefore, before passing the order of compulsory retirement, respondents were required to observe the principles of natural justice. Mr. Kariel submitted that in any case, the petitioner has made representation against the adverse entries and the authorities were satisfied that the petitioner was capable to handle any situation and the adverse entries made against the petitioner were required to be expunged from the C.Rs. of the petitioner. Mr. Kariel submitted that though the C.Rs. for the year 1991-1992 written by the superior officer of the petitioner contained good entries in favour of the petitioner, however, such entries are treated to be adverse against the petitioner and by considering such entries as adverse entries, order of compulsory retirement is passed against the petitioner which reflects total non-application of mind on the part of the respondents. Mr. Kariel, thus, urged to allow this petition. Mr. Kariel has relied on Ram Ekbal Sharma v. State of Bihar, reported in 1990 (3) SCC 504 ; High Court of Punjab and Haryana through H.R. G. v. Ishwar Chand Jain, reported in 1999 (4) SCC 579 . 5. As against the above arguments, learned A.G.P. Mrs. V. S. Pathak for the respondents submitted that the order of compulsory retirement is passed after taking into consideration adverse entries against the petitioner for the last five years and the competent authority has passed impugned order in public interest, and such decision may not be interfered with by this Court while exercising powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Mrs. Mrs. Pathak submitted that the competent authority has also considered the representation made by the petitioner against the adverse entries communicated to the petitioner. Mrs. Pathak submitted that even if any of the adverse entry is not communicated to the petitioner, there is no bar in considering such adverse entries in the C.Rs. of the petitioner for passing the order of compulsory retirement against the petitioner. Mrs. Pathak submitted that reference to the departmental inquiry for passing the order of compulsory retirement is just for the purpose to show that the competent authority is aware about such departmental inquiries. However, for passing the order of compulsory retirement, departmental inquiries against the petitioner have not been taken into consideration, therefore, it cannot be said that the competent authority has adopted short-cut for passing order of compulsory retirement against the petitioner. Mrs. Pathak submitted that the adverse entries against the petitioner right from 1986 clearly reveal that the petitioner was not fit to act as an independent and competent officer to perform his duties in public interest, therefore, considering the nature of adverse entries made against the petitioner, competent authority thought it fit to compulsorily retire the petitioner which cannot be considered to be punitive in nature. Mrs. Pathak submitted that simply because the C.Rs. for the year 1991-1992 did not contain any adverse entry against the petitioner, same would not wipe out adverse entries made against the petitioner for the earlier years, and therefore, even if the entries made for the year 1991-1992 are not taken to be adverse to the petitioner, then also, considering the nature of adverse entries made against the petitioner from the year 1986 to 1990, it cannot be said that such adverse entries were not sufficient to pass the order of compulsory retirement against the petitioner. Mrs. Pathak submitted that the competent authority was fully satisfied on the basis of the material available before it for passing the order of compulsory retirement against the petitioner, and therefore, this Court may not interfere with such order of compulsory retirement and dismiss the petition as the petition is devoid of any merit. 6. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and having perused the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent with the adverse remarks made in the C.Rs. 6. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and having perused the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent with the adverse remarks made in the C.Rs. of the petitioner from the year 1986 to 1992 and with the copy of the report of the review committee produced on record, it appears that the review committee took into consideration the adverse entries made in the C.Rs. for the year 1986-1987, 1988-1989, 1989-1990 and 1991-1992. 7. C.Rs. of the petitioner for 1986-1987 to 1990-1991 are as under: 1-4-1986 to 31-3-1987 : 1. In this context, it is necessary to go through the meter dispute case of M/s. Harish Silk Mills, Surat. This gives indication about his attitude in sensitive areas. 2. As per Vernacular letter No. CHVN-G-86-6120 dated 18-12-1986, Government has conveyed this office to instruct Shri Pai for not entering into direct correspondence with the Government and to make a note of this in his confidential report. 1-4-1987 to 31-3-1988 :. 1. Satisfactory. 2. Good. 1-4-1988 to 31-3-1989 : 1. A charge-sheet for his involvement in meter dispute case has been given vide Government Memo No. DPE/1186/1113l/D1 dated 13-3-1989. 2. I am hesitant to give any positive opinion for his integrity. 3. A man suffering from certain complexes. 4. Ordinary. 1-4-1989 to 31-3-1990 : 1. A memo : MVN-1187-5267 dated 19-6-1989 has been issued for consulting inquiry for not properly maintaining the log book of Government Car and making correction in it and for making incomplete entries and for not maintaining proper decorum in correspondence with higher office. 2. He has been warned vide Government Memo : PRC-1089-17 -61 dated 10-8-1989 for showing wrong attendance on duty though he was actually absent and for unauthorisedly leaving Head Quarter without prior approval or sanction of the competent authority and for his behaviour not befitting a Class-I Officer. 3. Satisfactory. 4. Satisfactory. 1-4-1990 to 31-3-1991 : 1. Charge-sheet has been issued for the case of Giriraj Cinema, Navsari on the recommendation of A.C.B. vide Memo: KTP-1589-822-D1 dated 23-7-1990. 2. Satisfactory. 3. Good. 1-4-1991 to 31-3-1992 : A good officer. Has ability to get along with the members of the public and with other officers. Good general reputation. Nothing adverse as far as integrity. 8. Charge-sheet has been issued for the case of Giriraj Cinema, Navsari on the recommendation of A.C.B. vide Memo: KTP-1589-822-D1 dated 23-7-1990. 2. Satisfactory. 3. Good. 1-4-1991 to 31-3-1992 : A good officer. Has ability to get along with the members of the public and with other officers. Good general reputation. Nothing adverse as far as integrity. 8. So far as the adverse entries for the year 1986-1987 are concerned, the review committee has observed that the petitioner is not clear about his thoughts and he considers each matter with prejudicial mind. However, same does not get support from the actual C.Rs. written for the year 19861987. The C. R. for the year 1987-1988 reflects performance of the petitioner as satisfactory and good. However, there is no mention about such favourable entries in the review committee report. 9. The C.R. for the year 1989-1990 records that the petitioner has been served with the memo for conducting inquiry for not properly maintaining log book of the Government Car and for making incorrect entries and for not maintaining proper decorum in correspondence with the higher officer and further warned for showing wrong attendance on duty though he was actually absent without prior approval or sanction from the competent authority. However, in the said C.R. at item No. 3-4, his performance is stated to be satisfactory. Likewise, C.Rs. for the year 1990-1991 records that he has been issued charge-sheet in respect of Giriraj Cinema at Navsari on recommendation from A.C.B. but his performance is recorded as satisfactory and good at item No. 2-3. Unfortunately, there is no mention about the remarks made in the C.R. for the year 1990-1991 in the report of the review committee 10. It is true that an employee could be retired compulsorily on the basis of the adverse remarks made against him and it is equally true that the Court has got very limited power to sit in appeal over the decision taken by the competent authority. Judicial review is available to the Court only when the Court finds that the order is based on no adverse material against an employee or that the order is actuated with mala fide or that the order of compulsory retirement based upon non-application of mind to the material available before the competent authority, or mere camouflage and made for collateral and extraneous reasons. 11. Out of the C.Rs. 11. Out of the C.Rs. for the aforesaid years, the C.Rs. for the year 1987-1988 reflects performance of the petitioner as satisfactory and good. C.Rs. for the year 1990-1991 also reflects that his performance is satisfactory and good. C.Rs. for the year 1991-1992 bestowed more credit to the petitioner. So far as the year 1988-1989 and 1990-1991 are concerned, in both the years, petitioner• is served with different charge-sheet for holding departmental inquiry and the Court is informed that the departmental inquiries were held and the petitioner was exonerated. Then what remains is the C.R. for the year 1989-1990 where though the performance of the petitioner has been recorded satisfactory at item No. 3-4 but it was stated that he was not maintaining decorum in correspondence with the higher officer and he was also warned for showing wrong attendance on duty though he was actually absent. It appears that the review authority has mainly considered the C.Rs. of the year 1988-1989 and 1989-1990 but ignored favourable material of good and satisfactory performance of the petitioner. 12. Therefore, in my view, the order of compulsory retirement based on such report of the review committee could be said to be an order passed against the petitioner without there being any adverse material against the petitioner so as to hold that it was not in the public interest to continue the petitioner in service. The review committee consisted of the Additional Chief Secretary (Energy and Petrochemicals) and Chief Electrical Inspector appears to have either not scanned through merits and de-merits of the adverse entries in the C.Rs. of the petitioner or it appears that the Committee was swayed away with the so-called behaviour of the petitioner of not maintaining decorum in the correspondence with the higher authority. Though, the impugned order of compulsory retirement records that the petitioner has been compulsorily retired in public interest, lifting the veil, what is found behind the order is non-consideration of favourable material by the review committee reflecting non-application of mind by the members of the review committee for deciding as to whether the petitioner needs to be continued in service. Though, the impugned order of compulsory retirement records that the petitioner has been compulsorily retired in public interest, lifting the veil, what is found behind the order is non-consideration of favourable material by the review committee reflecting non-application of mind by the members of the review committee for deciding as to whether the petitioner needs to be continued in service. It needs to be mentioned that though integrity was not doubted in any of the C.Rso of the petitioner and when in the C.R. for the year 1991-1992 written by the Collector and the District Magistrate, the petitioner is found to be of good reputation, the review committee misdirected itself by recording that in the C.Rs. for the year 1991-1992, there is no good opinion as regards integrity of the petitioner. It appears from the over-all consideration of the material considered by the review committee that the performance of the petitioner was satisfactory and good, and there was nothing adverse as regards integrity of the petitioner, still, because of his nature of working independently and not maintaining decorum in the communication with the higher authorities, the higher authority found such things mentioned in the C.Rs. as sufficient enough to weed out him from service. In fact, from the C.Rs. considered by the review committee, it cannot be said that the review committee was satisfied that the petitioner has become dead wood so as to compulsorily retire him in public interest. 13. In the case of Ram Ekbal Sharma, ( 1990 (3) SCC 504 ) Hon'ble Supreme Court held and observed in Para 32 as under : "32. On a consideration of the above decisions, the legal position that now emerges is that even though the order of compulsory retirement is couched in innocuous language without making any imputations against the Government servant who is directed to be compulsorily retired from service, the Court, if challenged, in appropriate cases can lift the veil to find out whether the order is based on any misconduct of the Government servant concerned or the order has been made bona fide and not with any oblique or extraneous purposes. Mere form of the order in such cases cannot deter the Court from delving into the basis of the order if the order in question is challenged by the concerned Government servant as has been held by this Court in Anoop Jaiswal’s case. Mere form of the order in such cases cannot deter the Court from delving into the basis of the order if the order in question is challenged by the concerned Government servant as has been held by this Court in Anoop Jaiswal’s case. This being the position the respondent-State cannot defend the order of compulsory retirement of the appellant in the instant case on the mere plea that the order has been made in accordance with the provisions of Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Bihar Service Code 694 which prima facie does not make any imputation or does not cast any stigma on the service career of the appellant. But in view of the clear and specific averments made by the respondent-State that the impugned order has been made to compulsorily retire the appellant from service under the aforesaid Rule as the appellant was found to have committed grave financial irregularities leading to financial loss to the State, the impugned order cannot but be said to have been made by way of punishment. As such, such an order is in contravention of Art. 311 of the Constitution of India, as well as it is arbitrary as it violates principles of natural justice and the same has not been made bona fide." 14. In the case of Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada, reported in 1992 (2) SCC 299 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has held and observed in Paras 32 and 34 as under : "32. We may not be understood as saying either that adverse remarks need not be communicated or that the representations, if any, submitted by the Government servant (against such remarks) need not be considered or disposed of. The adverse remarks ought to be communicated in the normal course, as required by the Rules/orders in that behalf. Any representations made against them would and should also be dealt with in the normal course, with reasonable promptitude. All that we are saying is that the action under F.R. 56(j) (or the Rule corresponding to it) need not await the disposal or final disposal of such representation or representations, as the case may be. In some cases, it may happen that some adverse remarks of the recent years are not communicated or if communicated, the representation received in that behalf are pending consideration. On this account alone, the action under F.R. 56(j) need not be held back. In some cases, it may happen that some adverse remarks of the recent years are not communicated or if communicated, the representation received in that behalf are pending consideration. On this account alone, the action under F.R. 56(j) need not be held back. There is reason to presume that the review committee or the Government, if it chooses to take into consideration such un-communicated remarks, would not be conscious or cognisant of the fact that they are not communicated to the Government servant and that he was not given an opportunity to explain or rebut the same. Similarly, if any representation made by the Government servant is there, it shall also be taken into consideration. We may reiterate that not only the review committee is generally composed of high and responsible officers, the power is vested in Government alone and not in a minor official. It is unlikely that adverse remarks over a number of years remain un-communicated and yet they are made the primary basis of action. Such an unlikely situation if indeed present, may be indicative of malice in law. We may mention in this connection that the remedy provided by Art. 226 of the Constitution is no less an important safeguard. Even with its well-known constraints, the remedy is an effective check against mala fide, perverse or arbitrary action. 34. The following principles emerge from the above discussion : (i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of mis-behaviour. (ii) The order has to be passed by the Government on forming the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a Government servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the Government. (iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the High Court or this Court would not examine the matter as an appellate Court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is passed (a) mala fide or (b) that it is based on no evidence, or (c) that it is arbitrary - in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material; in short, if it is found to be perverse order. (iv) The Government (or the review committee, as the case may be) shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter - of course attaching more importance to record of and performance during the later years. The record to be so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential records/character rolls, both favourable and adverse. If a Government servant is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding the adverse remarks, such remarks lose their sting, more so, if the promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority. (v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on the showing that while passing it, un-communicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interfere. Interference is permissible only on the grounds mentioned in (iii) above. This aspect has been discussed in Paras 30 to 32 above." 15. In the case of Madhya Pradesh State Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd. v. Rajnesh Kumar Jamindar, reported in 2009 (15) SCC 221 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has held and observed in Paras 39, 48 and 51 as under : "39. Before us, like before the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court, various discrepancies in the report of the Scrutiny Committee as approved by the review committee were pointed out. The examples placed before us clearly demonstrate that neither the scrutiny committee nor the review committee took into consideration the relevant factors germane for the purpose of passing such an order and in fact had taken into consideration irrelevant factors which were not germane therefor. Some of the employees, for a number of years, had been shown to be good officers; A.C.Rs. of some of whom in some of the years have been "very good". 48. It is also a well-settled principle of law that an authority discharging a public function must act fairly. It for the aforementioned purpose, cannot take into consideration an irrelevant or extraneous matter which is not germane for the purpose for which the power is sought to be exercised. The scrutiny committee as also the review committee was required to pose unto themselves a correct question of law so as to enable them to find out a correct answer. It for the aforementioned purpose, cannot take into consideration an irrelevant or extraneous matter which is not germane for the purpose for which the power is sought to be exercised. The scrutiny committee as also the review committee was required to pose unto themselves a correct question of law so as to enable them to find out a correct answer. It was, therefore, imperative that the criteria laid down in the circulars issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh should have been scrupulously followed. Federation, therefore, in our opinion, having regard to the fact that there was no material to show that the respondents-employees had become deadwood, inefficient or corrupt, must be held to have abused its power. 51. Submission of Mr. Sreekumar, that the High Court should not have interfered with the order of compulsory retirement keeping in view the fact that no mala fide has been alleged in the scrutiny committee nor any case of discrimination has been made out, cannot be accepted. It is one thing to say that a yardstick has been fixed for the purpose of taking recourse to the power of compulsory retirement, but there cannot be any doubt or dispute that such yardstick must be based on relevant criteria. If the relevant criteria, as has been laid down by the State, which has been adopted by the Federation, had not been acted upon, the order must be held to have been suffering from jurisdictional error." 16. In light of the above, the judicial review by this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is very much available to find out whether there was in fact material available with the review committee to form opinion for compulsory retirement of the petitioner or whether the non-consideration of the favourable material available with the review committee would vitiate the order of compulsory retirement and further whether the compulsory retirement of the petitioner was just camouflage and short-cut to weed out the petitioner from his service simply because the petitioner had an attitude of not maintaining decorum while entering into correspondence with the higher officers. As discussed above, the C.Rs. of the petitioner for the last five years were not containing such adverse remarks which could have led the review committee to form opinion that the petitioner is not fit to continue in service in public interest. As discussed above, the C.Rs. of the petitioner for the last five years were not containing such adverse remarks which could have led the review committee to form opinion that the petitioner is not fit to continue in service in public interest. In fact, if the petitioner's services were found to be satisfactory in his C.Rs. for the last five years, and if there was nothing adverse against his .integrity and when in departmental inquiries also, he was exonerated, it appears that the order of compulsory retirement passed against the petitioner was nothing but camouflage under the guise of public interest though the C.Rs. of the petitioner did not reflect that the petitioner has become dead-wood. Under the circumstances, the petition is required to be allowed. 17. The Court is informed that the petitioner has already reached the age of superannuation. The question then arise as to what relief could be granted to the petitioner while quashing and setting aside the order of compulsory retirement. Learned Advocate Mr. Kariel for the petitioner has left the grant of back wages to the discretion of the Court. When the Court put to him that the petitioner could not be granted more than 40% back wages, he under the instructions stated that the petitioner would be agreeable to 40 % back wages for intervening period on quashing and setting aside of the order of compulsory retirement with other consequential benefits and continuity of service. 18. Considering the above aspects of the matter, following order is passed : This petition is allowed. Order of compulsory retirement dated 7-1-1993 is quashed and set aside. Petitioner is held to be in continuous service irrespective of the order of compulsory retirement till the date of his superannuation. However, the petitioner shall be entitled to back wages only to the extent of 40 percent. The petitioner shall also be entitled to all other consequential benefits on the basis of his continuous service. The respondents are directed to work out all the benefits available to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order and shall make actual payments thereof to the petitioner within three months thereafter. Rule is made absolute to the extent indicated hereinabove. Petition allowed.