JUDGMENT : N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J. 1. Both these L. P. Appeals arise out of a common order made in SWP no. 2220/2015 dated 15.07.2016 quashing the order of premature retirement of the writ petitioner passed under Article 226 (2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations and directing his reinstatement in service with 30% of salary payable from the date of premature retirement till his reinstatement. As against the decision of quashing the order of premature retirement the State Government as well as the Jammu Municipal Corporation preferred L. P. Appeal No. 122/2016 and as against the denial of 70% of back wages, the writ petitioner has preferred L. P. Appeal No. 103/2016. 2. The case of the respondent in LPASW No. 122/2016 and appellant in LPASW No. 103/2016 before the Writ Court was as follows:- The writ petitioner was appointed in Jammu Municipal Corporation and was promoted to the post of Chief Enforcement Officer. His services have been commended by his superior officers and he was given cash award of Rs. 500-/by the Administrator Jammu Municipality Jammu in the year 2002. According to the writ petitioner he was instrumental in unveiling numerous violations of building plans by various persons including some commercial buildings. Due to the said steps taken by the writ petitioner various persons entertained hostility as the writ petitioner had not permitted the builders to raise constructions in violation of building plans. The 1st respondent in the writ petition, keeping in view the extra ordinary services rendered by the writ petitioner as Chief Enforcement Officer, Jammu Municipal Corporation, by Government order No. 266-HUD of 2014 dated 09.10.2014 assigned the charge of the post of Chief Enforcement Officer of the Jammu Development Authority in addition to his own duties. Again by Government Order No. 141-HUD of 2015 dated 24.04.2015 the 1st respondent attached the writ petitioner in Housing and Urban Development Department to devise a policy for dealing with regularization of unauthorized construction of buildings/structures in Jammu, Srinagar and Katra as required by J&K Civic Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2014. The Writ petitioner being not interested to be a member to devise a policy challenged the said order by filing SWP no. 1221/2015 and obtained interim order on 28.04.2015 and the writ petitioner was permitted to mark his attendance before respondent no.2-Commissioner Jammu Municipal Corporation. The Writ petitioner being not interested to be a member to devise a policy challenged the said order by filing SWP no. 1221/2015 and obtained interim order on 28.04.2015 and the writ petitioner was permitted to mark his attendance before respondent no.2-Commissioner Jammu Municipal Corporation. In view of the said fact, namely, the writ petitioner approached this Court and got an interim order. Three FIRs were registered against the writ petitioner bearing FIR no. 25 of 2012 dated 08.12.2012, FIR no. 02/2014 dated 09.01.2014 and FIR no. 21/2014 dated 30.06.2014. No challan was filed after investigation in the said FIRs and relying upon the registration of FIRs the order of premature retirement was passed as if the writ petitioner is an undeserving person by Government Order no. 166-HUD of 2015 dated 30.06.2015, ordering premature retirement of the writ petitioner from 01.07.2015 forenoon. 3. The said order was challenged by the writ petitioner by contending that mere registration of FIRs cannot be a ground to take adverse action against the writ petitioner who is a government servant. The second ground raised in the writ petition was that for over five years the Annual Performance Report (APR) entries were found excellent/outstanding, and, therefore, there was no material before the Review Committee to come to a conclusion that the writ petitioner is not a worthy person to continue in service. 4. The contention of the respondents in the writ petition was that the writ petitioner was not only involved in three FIRs but was also facing probe in other allegations regarding the grant of building plans. 5. The Writ Court considered the APR entries made in 2010-11, awarding him Intelligent, outstanding and the remarks that he played a leading role in removal of encroachments, including good moral character -beyond doubt and general assessment being hard working, sincere and dedicated officer in the organization as well as the similar APR entries made for subsequent years up to 2014-15 and the fact that though three FIRs were registered, no progress was made in the investigation and challans were not filed, allowed the writ petition by relying on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in (1999) 1 SCC 529 (State of Gujarat v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah), (1980) 4 SCC 266 (Gian Singh Maan v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana), (1992) 2 SCC 299 (Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief Distt. Medical Officer) and (2013) 3 SCC 514 (Rajesh Gupta v. State of J&K and Ors), set aside the order of premature retirement of the writ petitioner and ordered 30% of salary till the date of his reinstatement. 6. The contention of Mr. S. S. Nanda, learned Sr. AAG was that the duly constituted Review Committee having exercised its power and made recommendations, on the basis of which the order of premature retirement has been passed on 30.06.2015, the Writ Court was not justified in quashing the order with 30% back wages. 7. Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, while challenging the order denying 70% back wages, submitted that the writ petitioner being an honest officer as per APR entries, which was reflected in his APR entries, having been retired prematurely, which order having been held erroneous, the Writ Court ought to have granted full back wages as he was not gainfully employed from 01.07.2015 anywhere. 8. We have considered the rival submissions. 9. It is advantageous to extract the order of compulsory retirement at this juncture which reads thus:- "Subject: Retirement in pursuance of Article 226(2) of J&K CSR Vol. I. Government Order No. 166-HUD of 2015 Dated: 30.06.2015. Whereas the Government is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by article 226(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services regulations, the Government hereby gives notice to Sh. Satish Khajuria, Chief Enforcement Officer, Jammu Municipal Corporation, that he having rendered 22 years of service, shall retire from service with effect from forenoon of 01.07.2015. He is allowed three months play and allowances in lieu of three-months notice." The relevant provision of law under which an order of compulsory/premature retirement can be passed is Article 226(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations which reads thus:- "226. He is allowed three months play and allowances in lieu of three-months notice." The relevant provision of law under which an order of compulsory/premature retirement can be passed is Article 226(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations which reads thus:- "226. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in these Regulations Government may, if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so, require any Government servant other than the one working on a post which is included in Schedule II of these Rules, to retire at any time after he has completed 22 years/44 completed six monthly periods of qualifying service or on attaining 48 years of age; provided that the appropriate authority shall give in this behalf a notice (in one of the forms prescribed in annexures A and B hereto as the case may be), to the Government servant at least 3 months before the date on which he is required to retire or 3 months of pay and allowance in lieu of such notice. Such a Government servant shall be granted pensionary benefits admissible under these rules on the basis of qualifying service put in by him on the date of such retirement. Explanation.-A Government servant who is retired immediately after allowing him pay and allowances in lieu of notice will be entitled to pension from the date of such retirement and the pension shall not be deferred till after the expiry of the three months for which he is paid pay and allowances." 10. On perusal of the impugned order with reference to Regulation, it is evident that not only the APRs are to be considered but the entire service record should be taken into consideration before coming to a decision to retire a person prematurely. The APR entries are exemplary/outstanding which are extracted in detail by the Writ Court in its order. 11. The Writ Court has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in (1999) 1 SCC 529 (Supra), wherein in paragraph no. 26 it is held thus:- ''26. The APR entries are exemplary/outstanding which are extracted in detail by the Writ Court in its order. 11. The Writ Court has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in (1999) 1 SCC 529 (Supra), wherein in paragraph no. 26 it is held thus:- ''26. The whole exercise described above would, therefore, indicate that although there was no material on the basis of which a reasonable opinion could be formed that the respondent had outlived his utility as a Govt, servant or that he had lost his efficiency and had become a dead-wood, he was compulsorily retired merely because of his involvement in two criminal cases pertaining to the grant of permits in favour of fake and bogus institutions. The involvement of a person in a criminal case does not mean that he is guilty. He is still to be tried in a court of law and the truth has to be found out ultimately by the court where the prosecution is ultimately conducted. But before that stage is reached, it would be highly improper to deprive a person of his livelihood merely on the basis of his involvement. We may, however, hasten to add that mere involvement in a criminal case would constitute relevant material for compulsory retirement or not would depend upon the circumstances of each case and the nature of offence allegedly committed by the employee." 12. In the decision reported in AIR 1992 SC 1020 (Baikuntha Nath Das. v. Chief District Medical Officer) in paragraph 32 sub-para (iv) it is held thus:- "(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." 13. 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." 13. In the decision reported in (1994) Supp (3) SCC 424 (S. Ramachandra Raju v. State of Orissa) it is held thus :- "On total evaluation of the entire record of service if the Government or the governmental authority forms the opinion that in the public interest the officer needs to be retired compulsorily, the court may not interfere with the exercise of such bona fide judicial review not as a court of appeal but in its exercise of judicial review to consider whether the power has been properly exercised or is arbitrary or vitiated either by mala fide or actuated by extraneous consideration or arbitrary in retiring the government officer compulsorily from service." 14. In the decision reported in 2010 (4) JKJ 89 (HC) (State of J&K and ors v. Janak Singh), a Division Bench of this Court in paragraph 7 has held thus:- "7. Whether registration of an FIR, based upon specific complaint, can be made basis for formulation of an opinion for pre-mature retirement, is an issue which is no longer res integra. As already stated above, formulation of subjective opinion on the basis of the record of the respondent, will be a determinative factor to prematurely retire him. Registration of 2 FIRs is not part of the service record of the respondent on the basis of which opinion can be formulated by the Review Committee. These are merely allegations which are subject matter of investigation/trial and cannot become the basis for formulation of such an opinion, as rightly observed herein supra that the fate of these complaints has to be determined by the agency which is not a part of the Committee. We, accordingly, hold that learned Single Judge was correct in rejecting the contention of the appellants in this behalf." 15. We, accordingly, hold that learned Single Judge was correct in rejecting the contention of the appellants in this behalf." 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2014) 4 SCC 773 (High Court of Judicature of Patna v. Shyam Deo Singh and ors) considered a similar issue regarding non-extension of service of a Judicial Officer up to the age of 60 years and in fact upheld the order of the High Court setting aside the order of denying the extension in service on the ground that the entire service record of the Judicial Officer was not assessed by the administrative Committee as well as the Full Court. Thus it is evident that the entire service record of the person who is to be compulsorily retired is mandatory requirement to find out the utility of the person or not. Even in respect of promotion, over all assessment of service record of candidates by the selection committee is mandatory as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 2015 SC 141 (G. Mohanasundaram v. R. Nanthagopal and Ors). In AIR 2015 SC 2426 (Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. And ors v. Hari Kishan Verma) the said position is reiterated. 16. The only reason to justify the compulsory retirement argued by the learned Senior AAG was that the writ petitioner was arrayed as accused person in three FIRs and some other allegations were also under probe, therefore, the Government thought it fit to weed out such a corrupt person. When this Court put a specific question as to whether in any of the probes any adverse finding is rendered or in the FIRs registered whether anything was found against the writ petitioner during investigation, the learned senior AAG fairly submitted that up to this date nothing was found against the writ petitioner. In such circumstances mere registration of FIR or alleged probe of certain alleged irregularities cannot be a ground to retire a person compulsorily when his APR entries are excellent/outstanding and assessment of integrity as "beyond doubt", and "nothing adverse was noticed". In the counter affidavit filed before the Writ Court the appellants in LPASW no. 122/2016 tried to justify the order of compulsory retirement on the ground that, "the writ petitioner does not enjoy good reputation in the public due to his consistent conduct over a period of time. In the counter affidavit filed before the Writ Court the appellants in LPASW no. 122/2016 tried to justify the order of compulsory retirement on the ground that, "the writ petitioner does not enjoy good reputation in the public due to his consistent conduct over a period of time. The Committee came to the conclusion that the writ petitioner is generally known to have a bad reputation and has indulged in wrong doings while performing his duties. The Committee, therefore, recommended for premature retirement of the petitioner." 17. The Writ Court has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court (1999) 1 SCC 529 (Supra), to support its view that merely because FIRs are registered and some allegations were under probe, the same cannot be a proof of allegations by in APRs for compulsory retirement of the writ petitioner. We affirm the said decision rendered by the Writ Court. Thus the appeal preferred by the State and the Jammu Municipal Corporation in LPASW no. 122/2016 is dismissed as devoid of any merit. 18. Insofar as L.P. Appeal preferred by the writ petitioner as against the denial of 70% of back wages is concerned, the writ petitioner was prematurely retired at the age of 58 years i.e. from 01.07.2015 by giving three months full pay in lieu of notice and he having been prevented from discharging his duties due to the order of premature retirement dated 30.06.2015 and the same having been found erroneous, the writ petitioner is entitled to get full salary for the period during which he was not allowed to work. 19. In the decision reported in (2013) 10 SCC 324 (Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya and ors), Hon'ble the Supreme Court considered the grant of back wages and has held thus:- "The very idea of restoring an employee to the position which he held before dismissal or removal or termination of service implies that the employee will be put in the same position in which he would have been but for the illegal action taken by the employer. The injury suffered by a person, who is dismissed or removed or is otherwise terminated from service cannot easily be measured in terms of money. With the passing of an order which has the effect of severing the employer employee relationship, the latter's source of income gets dried up. The injury suffered by a person, who is dismissed or removed or is otherwise terminated from service cannot easily be measured in terms of money. With the passing of an order which has the effect of severing the employer employee relationship, the latter's source of income gets dried up. Not only the concerned employee, but his entire family suffers grave adversities. They are deprived of the source of sustenance. The children are deprived of nutritious food and all opportunities of education and advancement in life. At times, the family has to borrow from the relatives and other acquaintance to avoid starvation. These sufferings continue till the competent adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of the action taken by the employer. The reinstatement of such an employee, which is preceded by a finding of the competent judicial/quasi judicial body or Court that the action taken by the employer is ultra vires the relevant statutory provisions or the principles of natural justice, entitles the employee to claim full back wages. If the employer wants to deny back wages to the employee or contest his entitlement to get consequential benefits, then it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove that during the intervening period the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same emoluments. Denial of back wages to an employee, who has suffered due to an illegal act of the employer would amount to indirectly punishing the concerned employee and rewarding the employer by relieving him of the obligation to pay back wages including the emoluments." 20. It is to be noted at this juncture that writ petitioner will otherwise get 50% of his salary as pension from 01.10.2015 and the remaining amount of 50% only the writ petitioner will be getting consequent to quashing the order of premature retirement. Thus the order of the Writ Court, restricting his salary to 30% upto the date of his reinstatement cannot be sustained and the said portion of the order is set aside. Since the writ petitioner has already reached the age of superannuation on 31.07.2016, the salary payable from 01.10.2015 to 31.07.2016 shall be paid to the writ petitioner after adjusting the pension amount if any already paid. Since the writ petitioner has already reached the age of superannuation on 31.07.2016, the salary payable from 01.10.2015 to 31.07.2016 shall be paid to the writ petitioner after adjusting the pension amount if any already paid. The said period of service up to 31.07.2016 shall be treated as regular service for all purposes and the pension, if any sanctioned, shall also be re-fixed with effect from 01.08.2016 within a period of eight weeks. 21. In fine, L. P. Appeal no. 122/2016 is dismissed and L P. Appeal no. 103/2016 is allowed. 22. No costs.