Patnaik, CJ. -- 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 19.10.2001 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior Bench in OA No. 218/1996.

2. The facts briefly are that the respondent No.2 was working as Asstt. Statistical Officer in the State of Madhya Pradesh and he was prematurely retired under rule 42 (1) (b) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 by order dated 3.8.1995. The Respondent No.1 challenged the said order dated 3.8.1995 of compulsory retirement before the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior Bench in OA No. 218/1996. The Tribunal found from the records of the Screening Committee that the Screening Committee has considered the CRs of respondent No. 1 only for the period 1990-1994. The Tribunal held that as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court the entire service record of the Government servant had to be seen by the Screening Committee and since only five years' CRs of the respondent No.1 were considered by the Screening Committee, the order of compulsory retirement was liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the Tribunal quashed the order of compulsory retirement and directed that the respondent No.1 should be given consequential reliefs by the impugned order dated 19.10.2001. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.

3. Mr. Brajesh Sharma, learned Government Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the ACRs of the respondent No.1 for the last five years would show that for the year 1990 he got 'Gha' and for the years 1993, 1994 and 1995 he had got 'Ga' in each of the years and on the basis, of the said ACR entries of the respondent No.1, the Screening Committee had decided that he should be retired under rule 42 (1) (b) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976.

4. Mr. S.P. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, on the other hand, submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in WP No.113/2002 [State of M.P. and another v. Kedar Nath Ashthana and another] has decided on 24.1.2002 that where the entire service record of the employee has not been taken into consideration before passing an order of compulsory retirement, the same was illegal as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Baikuntha Nath Das and another v. Chief District Medical Ofjicer, Baripada and another [(1992) 2 SCC 299], State of Orissa and others v. Ram Chandra Das [( 1996) 5 SCC 33]] and State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel [(2001) 3 SCC 314]. He submitted that the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench in WP No. 113/2002 was challenged before the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition but the Supreme Court has dismissed the Special Leave Petition.

5. Rule 42 (l) (b) of the Madhya Pradesh Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 is quoted herein below:

"42. (1) (b) The appointing authority may in the public interest require a Government servant to retire from service at any time after he has completed 20 years qualifying service or he attains the age of 50 years whichever is earlier, with the approval of the State Government by giving him three months notice in Form 29 :

Provided that such Government servant may be retired forthwith and on such retirement the Government servant shall be entitled to c1aim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice at the same rates at which he was drawing then immediately before his retirement or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of three months."

The aforesaid Rule thus empowers the appointing authority to require a Government servant to retire from service at any time after he has completed 20 years of qualifying service or the attains the age of 50 years. whichever is earlier in the public interest. Interpreting similar provision ·in rule 71 of the Orissa Service Code, the Supreme Court has hel