JUDGMENT

TULZAPURKAR, J. :—This appeal, by special leave, raises the short question whether the impugned notice-cum-order of compulsory premature retirement from service passed against the respondent was in strict compliance with rule 8, Note (1) of the Revised Pension Rules, 1950?

2. The respondent joined as a Clerk in the office of the Registrar of Firms on Ist June, 1943. On 1st December, 1959 he was promoted to the post of a Senior Clerk. On 17th March, 1970 he was promoted as Head Clerk and thereafter on completion of 30 years of qualifying service under the Revised Pension Rules 1950, by the impugned notice-cum-order dated 3rd October, 1975 he was retired from service with effect from 10th January, 1976. The respondent made a representation on 22nd October, 1975 to the Industries Commissioner and Director of Industries, Bombay against the said compulsory retirement. On 2nd January, 1976 he received a reply from the Joint Secretary, Law and Justice Department, State of Maharashtra, stating that the Government did not consider it necessary to review his case. On 7th January, 1976 the respondent filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court being Miscellaneous Petition No. 16 of 1976 challenging the said compulsory retirement on several grounds. The High Court by its judgment and order dated 21st August, 1979, allowed the petition, struck down the impugned order and directed the State Government to reinstate the respondent in service as if he had never been retired from service with all the consequential benefits of such reinstatement. The High Court took the view that the said compulsory retirement of the respondent was not in strict compliance of Rule 8, Note (1) of the Revised Pension Rules, 1950 inasmuch as the exact reasons for such retirement had not been recorded in writing as required by Note (1) to the said Rule. Since the respondents petition succeeded on this short ground the High Court did not deal with or discuss the other grounds on which the impugned retirement was challenged. The State Government has come up in appeal against the decision of the High Court.

3. Since the point raised in the appeal pertains to the question whether Rule 8, Note (1) of the Revised Pension Rules, 1950 was strictly complied with while issuing the impugned notice-cum-order of compulsory retirement in the case of the respondent, it will be proper to set out the Rule together with Note (1) which runs thus :

"8. A Government servant may retire from service any time after completing 30 years qualifying service provided that he shall give in this behalf notice in writing to the appropriate authority, at least three months before the date on which he wishes to retire. Government may also require a Government servant to retire any time after he has completed 30 years qualifying service provided that the appropriate authority shall give in this behalf a notice in writing to the Govt. servant at least three months before the date on which he is required to retire.

"Note (1). The authority competent to serve notice on Govt. servants who have completed 30 years qualifying service should be the Head of department in respect of Govt. servants whom the Head of Departments, or lower authorities are competent to appoint. The power of requiring Govt. servants to retire should be restricted to retirement of efficiency of a Govt. servant against whom it is not desirable to make a formal charge of inefficiency or a Govt. servant ceasing to be fully efficient but not to such a degree as to warrant his retirement on compassionate pension. The exact reason should be recorded in writing in each case".

4. It is an admitted position that the impugned notice-cum-order dated 3rd October, 1975 compulsorily retiring the respondent with effect from 10th January, 1976 was issued under the aforesaid Rule 8 read with Note (1). It is further admitted that the impugned notice-cum-order was served on the respondent giving him full three months before the date on which he