Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Sri O.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for appellant, Sri U.N. Mishra, learned counsel for respondents and perused the record.

By means of present special appeal the appellant has challenged the order dated 5.3.2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 2285 (SS) 2007 (Dharam Avtar Srivastava v. District Judge, Unnao and others) by which the order of compulsory retirement of the appellant dated 30.3.2007 passed by District Judge, Unnao has been set aside, however, it was held that the petitioner is not entitled for any back-wages.

2. Facts in brief of the present case are that the order of compulsory retirement dated 30.3.2007 passed by District Judge Unnao has been challenged by the petitioner on three counts: (a) it was a malicious action on the part of opposite party (b) the record of the petitioner did not warrant a compulsory retirement and (c) that compulsory retirement has been resorted to as a measure of punishment which cannot be done.

3. By order dated 5.3.2013, the writ petition has been allowed, relevant observations are as under :

“Learned counsel for the petitioner has also taken the attention of the Court towards para No. 28 of the counter-affidavit filed by the opposite party. In this paragraph the opposite parties have blundered and admitted that action of compulsory retirement was in-fact a punitive action on their part. They have stated that this was the minimum punishment which has been awarded to the petitioner. Compulsory retirement can not be resorted to as a punishment. It has been so held in the case of Ram Ikbal Sharma reported in 1990 (3) Supreme Court Cases 504. He referred to para 20,22,32 of the aforesaid judgment. Compulsory retirement is not a punishment. This exercise to assess the over all suitablity of an employee to segregate ‘the dead wood’ from the more efficient and active persons of the department. On this legal score also the impugned order can not stand. The argument of Sri Sanjay Kumar succeeds from this count also.

The petitioner was allowed selection grade on 21.11.2001 by the Hon. High Court. Petitioner argues that once selection grade was given to him any adverse entry prior to that should not be counted. The petitioner has relied upon para No. 5 of the judgment reported in 1989 (4) Supreme Court Cases 664 (Vidya N. M. v. State of Orissa and others).

Lastly, he has argued that his record was not such which would have warranted compulsory retirement in normal course. He has drawn the attention of the Court towards the entry of 1994 and 1995 awarded by the reporting officer. It lays down as under :

“He was in the habit of shirking work. Though he is competent and efficient. He is also not a reliable and trustworthy. No complaint about his integrity was received.”

This entry fails to give any correct impression about the work of the petitioner. The petitioner has never been found guilty of any misconduct.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that no serious misconduct was reported against him. He was never suspended and has had unblemished service throughout. He has very humbly prayed that employee of the rank of the petitioner stood no chance against the mala fide intentions of the opposite party.

In such a situation where no objective assessment was made by the screening committee the only assessment of the District Judge can not be taken to be correct and the order of compulsory retirement was absolutely arbitrary, mala fide, unreasonable and unjustifiable.

Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 30.3.2007, as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, is hereby set aside.

The petitioner shall be reinstated in service with the benefit of continuity. However, since he has not worked during the period he was under compulsory retirement there will be no order for the payment of salary. Rest of the consequential benefits will be available to the petitioner.

So far as the appointment of three persons is concerned it has been concluded by this Cour