By the Court.—Heard Sri U.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Bhasin, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the opposite parties.

2. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of compulsory retirement dated 2.11.2000 has filed the instant writ petition.

3. The brief facts of the case in a nut shell are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Engineer on 7.2.1981 and thereafter the services of the petitioner were regularised by the State Government by the order dated 23.8.1986. The petitioner has also alleged that higher pay scale of the post of Executive Engineer was given to the petitioner from 7.2.1986 by the order dated 10.3.1993. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while passing the order of compulsory retirement, the entire record of service was not considered by the opposite parties as in the year 1995-96 a good entry was awarded to the petitioner and for the years 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 very good entries were awarded to him. He further submits that the Screening Committee recommended the case of the petitioner for compulsory retirement on the basis of the punishment order dated 26.11.1992 by which one increment was stopped and a censure entry was awarded to the petitioner against which a representation was made by the petitioner on 19.5.1994, which is still pending before the State Government and the adverse entry awarded to the petitioner for the year 1994-95 against which a representation was preferred by the petitioner on 22.6.1996, which is still pending before the State Government. He further submits that the Screening Committee also considered the punishment order dated 23.7.1997 by which a recovery order of Rs. 14,350.85 was passed against the petitioner regarding the financial irregularities against which a representation was made on 5.9.1997. He further submits that Fundamental Rule 56(2)(b) of the Financial Hand Book Volume-II Parts 2 to 4 provides that any entry against which a representation is pending may be considered provided the representation is also taken into consideration along with the entry and the Screening Committee while making the recommendation for compulsory retirement of the petitioner considered the adverse entry of the year 1994-95 without considering the representation preferred by the petitioner against the said adverse entry. He further submits that before the Screening Committee, the representations preferred by the petitioner against the punishment order and the adverse entry were not placed by the authorities for the reasons best known to them. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Baikunth Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, (1992) 2 SCC 299; and State of Gujarat and another v. Surya Kant Chunni Lal, (1999) 1 SCC 529 and on the strength of the aforesaid decisions, he submits that the integrity was certified by the authorities of all the years which were taken into consideration by the Screening Committee and the Screening Committee while making the recommendation for compulsory retirement of the petitioner has not considered the latest entries awarded to the petitioner in the confidential records. He has also relied upon the decisions of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Triloki Nath Maini v. State of U.P. and another, 2002(20) LCD 545; Baldev Raj Chaddha v. Union of India, (1980) 4 SCC 321; and the Division Bench decisions of this Court in Lala Ram Vidyarthi v. Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow, 2007(25) LCD 910 and Mahesh Chandra Agarwal v. State of U.P. and others, 2006(24) LCD 973 and on the strength of the aforesaid decisions, he submits that the petitioner has made improvement subsequent to 1994-95 when adverse entry was awarded to the petitioner and as such it cannot be said that the petitioner is not useful in service and is a dead wood.

4. The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the