JUDGMENT
Sunil Ambwani, J.
1. Heard Sri Anil Bhushan for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
2. Sri Ram Singh, Deputy Labour Commissioner, Ghaziabad was impleaded as party respondent in both the writ petitions. He has filed his counter affidavit dated 24.1.2004 in writ petition No. 16308 of 2002.
3. In Writ Petition No. 16308 of 2002, the petitioner who was serving as Labour Enforcement Officer in the office of Labour Commissioner, U.P. has prayed for quashing adverse entries awarded to the petitioner for the years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 (for three months mid term), the order dated 6.4.2002 by which the Additional Labour Commissioner, U.P. had communicated to the petitioner that his representation against the adverse entries of the years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 has been dismissed by the Labour Commissioner, U.P., and the order dated 19.3.2002 (challenged by an amendment application) by which the Labour Commissioner, U.P. had rejected the representation. In writ petition No. 20209 of 2002, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 24.4.2002 passed by Labour Commissioner, U.P., Kanpur retiring the petitioner from service compulsorily and the consequential order dated 27.4.2003 forwarding the copy of the order dated 24.4.2002 passed by Additional Labour Commissioner, Bareilly Region, Bareilly and has also prayed for treating him in service and to pay regular salary month by month. The petitioner had attained the age of 52 years at the time when he was compulsorily retired.
4. Brief facts as stated in the writ petition are given as below:
5. The petitioner was appointed as a clerk in the Labour Department of the State on 4.11.1997. He was selected by U.P. Public Service Commission and was appointed as Labour Assistant on 18.1.1981 and was promoted as Housing Inspector on 11.8.1987. He was thereafter promoted as Labour Enforcement Officer on 28.9.1975 by an order passed by the Labour Commissioner in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-7000 on a non-gazetted class III post. The then Deputy Labour Commissioner Bareilly Sri Ram Singh transferred the petitioner from Bareilly to Gorakhpur. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 171 of 1997 against the transfer order dated 19.12.1996. This Court vide interim order dated 9.1.1997 stayed the transfer order. The Court noted the arguments that the petitioner was transferred four times in a year. The transfer order dated 19.12.1996 was directed to be kept in abeyance till further order. The petitioner serve the stay order upon Sri Ram Singh on 9.1.1997 and made a complaint on 7.2.1997 alleging that after receiving the order of the High Court Sri Ram Singh had abused the petitioner and used improper language against the Judges of the High Court. It was also alleged in the complaint that Sri Ram Singh has not treated him properly and humiliates him by using cast relating aspersions and threats.
6. A notice was issued to the petitioner by Sri Ram Singh on 17.2.1997 to show cause with regard to the allegations made by the petitioner against him in his letter dated 7.2.1997 and to give parawise reply to the letter. The show cause notice alleged that on 5.1.1997 both Sri Ram Singh Deputy Labour Commissioner and the petitioner were on leave and that the petitioner had made false allegations with regard to the talks between them. The petitioner gave a reply to this show cause notice on 21.2.1997 reiterating the allegations. In para 3 it was submitted that the date of the talks between them was wrongly mentioned as 5.1.1997 by a typing mistake whereas this date was 5.10.1997 and once again alleged that Sri Ram Singh has not been treating petitioner fairly, and was prejudiced with petitioner’s caste.
7. It is stated in the writ petition that Sri Ram Singh Deputy Labour Commissioner was transferred from Bareilly to Kanpur on 9.8.1998 and that before his transfer he gave adverse entries to the petitioner which were after thought and ante dated. These entries relate to the period 1997-98 (1.4.1997 to 31.3.1998) communicated on 17.10.1998 to which the petitioner gave his reply on 28.11.1998. The second adverse entry relate to the period 1996-97 (22.7.1996 to 31.3.1997) dated 30.6.1997 which was served on the petitioner 8.2.1999 against which he sent representation on 6.3.1999 and the third entry dated 7.7.1999 relates to the period 1.4.1998 to 8.7.1998 (mid term) which was communicated to the petitioner on 30.8.1999 and against this entry the petitioner made his representation 18.9.1999.
8. The petitioner has made allegations of malafides against Sri Ram Singh. It is contended that all these adverse entries should have been communicated to the petitioner within 45 days in accordance with Rule 4 of the U.P. Government Servant (Disposal of Representation Against the Adverse Annual Confidential Reports and Allied Matters Rules, 1995 (in short Rules of 1995), made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, and published on 10th July, 1995. By a letter dated 6.4.2002 of the Additional Labour Commissioner, Kanpur the petitioner was communicated with the order of rejection of his representation by the Labour Commissioner, U.P. dated 19.3.2002. In para 26 of the writ petition it is stated that the representation made by the petitioner to the aforesaid entries on 28.11.19989, 6.3.1999 were decided by the Labour Commissioner on 19.3.2002, much after the period of 120 days from the date of expiry of 45 days of receipt of the representation under Sub-rule (3) and Sub-rule (4) to Rule 4 of the Rules of 1995. It is contended that according to Rule 5 of the Rules of 1995, except as provided under Rule 56 of the U.P. Fundamental Rules, where adverse report is not communicated or representation against adverse report has not been disposed of in accordance with Rule 4, such report shall not be treated as adverse for the purposes of promotion, crossing of efficiency bar, and other service matters of the government servant.
9. A Screening Committee consisting of Labour Commissioner, U.P., two Additional Labour Commissioners, the Director of Factories, U.P. and two Deputy Labour Commissioners, in its meeting dated 23.3.2002, under the Chairmanship of Labour Commissioner, U.P. considered the character roll of all those employees who had completed 50 years of age on 31.3.2002 for compulsory retirement. The Committee found that there are 47 employees against whom, there are warning/adverse entries out of whom 7 had received adverse entries of serious nature. The petitioner was considered at Sl No. 6. The proceedings of the Committee have been annexed as annexure. CA-1 to the counter affidavit of Sri A.K. Gupta, Deputy Labour Commissioner. The Committee found, while considering the matter petitioner Sri Salig Ram that he had received adverse entries in the years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 in which notes have been made with regard to his work and conduct and his integrity has not been certified. A consideration of these adverse entries shows that the petitioner has failed to fully discharge his duties and responsibilities which has put a question mark on the utility of the petitioner to the department and thus the committee recommended to retire him compulsory.
10. On the basis of the aforesaid assessment of the Screening Committee, the Labour Commissioner, U.P. by his order dated 24.4.2002 retired the petitioner compulsorily in public interest under Fundamental Rule 56(c) of Financial hand Book Vol. II part II to IV making him entitled to three month-salary in lieu of notice.
11. Sri Anil Bhushan counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was promoted as Labour Enforcement Officer in the year 1995. The adverse entries of the year 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 which have been made the basis of compulsory retirement were communicated to the petitioner against which he made representations within 45 days-under Rule 4(2) of the Rules of 1995. These representations were pending for a long period of time and were decided on 19.3.2002, just on the eye of meeting of the screening committee dated 23.3.2004, in which recommendation was made to retire him compulsorily. He submits that the entries were not based on the relevant material and that Sri Ram Singh was prejudiced against the petitioner in giving these adverse entries after he was transferred from Bareilly. He has alleged malafide against Sri Ram Singh and has submitted that these entries were back dated to punish the petitioner in the incident in which the petitioner had served the interim order of this Court on him on 5.2.1997 and for which Sri Ram Singh had given him show cause (sic) 17.2.1997.
12. Sri Anil Bhushan has also challenged these entries on merits and submits that these entries relate to the assessment of the work and were not of serious nature or consequences or for any misconduct.
13. Sri Anil Bhushan states that the entry for the year 1996-97 for the period 22.7.1996 to 31.3.1997, Sri Ram Singh, Deputy Labour Commissioner observes that on the basis of 5% random, 43 establishment, related to the area allotted to the petitioner out of which 12 establishment were reported to be closed and inspections were made with regard to 13 establishment in which 6 prosecutions and 2 cases for directions were registered. Out of the allotted establishment 18 establishments were not inspected. With regard to inspection of Agricultural establishment 250 inspections were shown but not a single case for direction was registered. The officer did not produce the list of the establishments inspected by him to the office. The diary from November, 1996 to March, 1997 has been produced on a single day on 3.6.1997. The report of inspection of unorganized rural area has not been given. The behavior of the officer towards the officers was not proper and he makes unnecessary complaints against him. The integrity was with held and the category of work was reported to be bad.
14. With regard to the entry of the year 1996-97 the petitioner in his representation dated 6.3.1999 to the Labour Commissioner submitted that this entry has been communicated lo him after two years in violation of the Rules of 1995. Sri Ram Singh is prejudiced against the petitioner as he has given him a show cause notice on petitioner’s complaint in the incident when the petitioner had served a copy of the stay order of the High Court staying his transfer on Sri Rain Singh. On the assessment of work the petitioner submitted, that on the randum list only 25 establishments were allotted to him which were inspected by him. Wish regard, to other establishments no explanation was offered nor they are related to the petitioner’s are. All the inspections were reported in the daily diary. There was no requirement or order to produce the list in the office. The petitioner had made 19 inspections in August, 1996, 37 in September, 33 in October, 35 in November, 60 in December, 30 in February, 1997 and 37 in March, 1997 and thus 250 inspections were made and the diary was produced before the Additional Labour Commissioner Sri S.K. Nigam, who used to summon the diary whenever he found it necessary. The petitioner did not produce the diary directly before the Deputy Labour Commissioner as no such instructions were given to him. Petitioner had initiated 35 prosecutions and 63 cases for directions out of the total number of 302 inspected units. The other allegations were absolutely false as there was no material for any misbehavior with senior officers.
15. In respect of the adverse entry for the year 1997-98, he submits that this entry reported, that the petitioner made 264 inspections with regard to Minimum Wages Act in the Agricultural sector, but no case was registered. The officer did not produce the prescribed diary for the year 1997, nor made inspection notes available to the office, and that the list of the inspected units which, was produced only after the, office required the list. For the months of October, November, December, 1997 and January and February, 1998, the inspection, notes disclosed that some of we inspection notes in respect of establishment in between the list were given and no satisfactory answer was given for the same. In this assessment it was observed that the petitioner was grossly negligent towards his duties and in compliance with the orders of the officers and that he has been making complaints against the officers. The Deputy Labour Commissioner Sri Ram Singh did not certify the integrity for the year and reported that his work and conduct was bad. The report was accepted by the Additional Labour Commissioner. The petitioner’s representation against this entry dated 28.11.1998 states that he was transferred from Kotdwar, (Garhwal) to Bareilly and joined on 22.7.1996, but he was again transferred to Mall Read, Gorakhpur and that since he had suffered three previous transfers within one year he find writ petition in which interim order was passed by this Court. He reiterated the incident with regard to service of stay order on Sri Ram Singh. With regard to the assessment of work, the petitioner submitted, that in all 264 inspections he found that the establishments were paying more than minimum wages and that no case was filed. The petitioner had produced the diary for the period after May 1997 to Sri S.K. Nigam, Assistant Labour Commissioner and that Sri Nigam has made signatures on these diaries. The entries, certifies that the were list was produced. He had made inspection in respect of the entire period and the office did not make any comment in pointing out any deficiency in the inspection note.
16. It is contended that for the year 1998-99 the period under assessment was three months beginning from 1.4.1998 to 9.7 1998 and that the basis of this entry was the assessment work of previous two years. It was reported by Sri Ram Singh on 7.7.1999, after about one year, that the petitioner deliberately did not submit, his work for assessment. His work and conduct in previous two years was not proper and that he had no knowledge of the Labour Rules and was irresponsible towards his work and the non production of work for assessment amounts to disobedience. In this year integrity was found doubtful and work and conduct reported to be bad which was accepted by the Additional Labour Commissioner.
17. With regard to this entry, the petitioner in his representation dated 18.9.1999 denied that he had not produced his work for assessment. The petitioner stated that the entry was for only three months and that he had submitted entire work for assessment before the Assistant Labour Commissioner within time. He denied that his conduct and behavior was bad and that he did not know Labour Rules. In all the meetings, his work and behavior as well as knowledge of rules was appreciated by senior officers and specially by Sri Shaym Krishna, Additional Labour Commissioner. There was no incident of any misbehavior and that his work for the year 1998-99 was assessed subsequently by the Additional Labour Commissioner. The petitioner submitted that there was no justification to with holding the integrity and that on account of the prejudice and malafides the adverse entry was given to him.
18. A report was submitted by Sri D.K. Kanpur, Deputy Labour Commissioner to the Labour Commissioner on 18.3.2002. This report was prepared for assisting the Labour Commissioner for disposing of all the three representations made by the petitioner. The Deputy Labour Commissioner in his report annexed to the counter affidavit of Sri Ram Singh dated 24.1.2004 filed on 29.1.2004 reports in respect of the entry for the year 1996-97 that the list of allotment of work shows that the petitioner did not discharge his duties. The fact that petitioner stated in his representation that it was not necessary to produce the list of inspection, and the cases registered of direction, unless, it was demanded, by itself shows that he was disobeying the orders and was careless in performing government duties. He observed that the report of the; Additional Labour Commissioner Sri S.K. Nigam shows that the diary was not produced before him. With regard to the adverse entry for the year 1997-98, the officer reported that the work of the officer in totality was not found to be good inasmuch as he did not try to improve his work for which he was given suggestion in the previous year, and thus indirectly it is fund that he did not; care to comply with the orders. It was reported that since in the previous year, no justification: was found to expunge the entry the same is being treated valid also in the year 1997-98.
19. In respect of the year 1998-99 the Deputy Labour Commissioner observed in his note that the details of work produced by him did not bear the date or signature. It cannot be ascertained whether it was produced in time or were prepared subsequently. He has not produced any document or material will, regard to appreciation of his work, by Sri Shyam Krishna, Additional Labour Commissioner, and since there was no ground to interfere in respect of last two entries, with regard to the allegations against Deputy Labour Commissioner. It was observed, that the nature of allegation establish insubordination and thus there is no justification for expunging the entry of the year 1998-99.
20. The Labour Commissioner has put his initial just below the signature name and designation of Deputy Labour Commissioner dated 19.3.2002. There is nothing to show that he had applied his mind or had even read the report as there is no comment made by him on this report. He has not even carried to write that he had perused the report or is agreement with the report. The making of initials below the report does not support the assertion made in the counter affidavit that the Labour Commissioner who was competent authority to decide the representation had applied his mind or had rejected the representation. It is contended that the order of the Labour Commissioner indicating that the petitioner’s representations were rejected was not based on any application of mind by the Labour Commissioner.
21. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the representations were decided before the screening committee considered the effect of the adverse entries. The initials made by the Labour Commissioner dated 19.3.2002 just below the report of the Deputy Labour Commissioner dated 18.3.2002 established that the Labour Commissioner had considered and had approved the report. It is submitted that the procedure provided in the Rules of 1995 are directory in nature and that delay in deciding live representation does not vitiate the exercise of power and that the sting of the entries is not reduced for the purpose of taking decision for compulsory retirement. The time frame given in the rules of 1995 is directory in nature. Learned Standing Counsel has relied upon the Judgment of Supreme Court in Baikunth Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada, (1992) 2 SCC 299 in submitting that uncommunicated entries can also be relied upon for compulsory retirement, which is not a punishment and that the law of compulsory retirement is well settled.
22. I have Considered the entries, the representation, the note prepared by the Deputy Labour Commissioner to assist the Labour Commissioner in disposing of the representations, and the report of the screening committee, as well as the allegations of malafide made against Sri Ram Singh and the reply of Sri Ram Singh filed in these proceedings. Before proceeding to discuss the same, it will be relevant to refer to the developments in law relating to the compulsory retirement. The order of compulsory retirement is not an order of punishment. In
Union of India v. J.N. Sinha, AIR 1971 SC 40. R.L. Butail v. Union of India, (1970) 2 SCC 876, Baikunth Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada AIR 1992 SC 1020, Union of India v. Dulal Dutt (1993) 2 SCC 179, it was held that it is prerogative of the Government based on the subjective satisfaction of the government to retire a government servant in public interest The principle of which the order can be subjected to judicial review have been laid down in Bainkunth Nath Das Case. These are quoted as below:
“(i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma or any suggestion of misbehavior.
(ii) The order has to be passed by the Government on forming the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a Government servant compulsorily. The order is passed in the subjective satisfaction of the Government.
(iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the High Court or this Court would not examine the matter as an appellate Court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is passed (a) mala fide or (b) that it is based on no evidence or (c) that it is arbitrary – in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material; in short, if it is found to be a perverse order.
(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 favorable and adverse. If a Government servant, is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding the adverse remarks, such remarks lose their sling, more so, if the promotion is based upon merit (Selection) and not upon seniority.
(v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on the showing that while passing it uncommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration The circumstances by itself cannot lie a basis for interference.”
23. In State of Gujrat v. Umedbhai M. Patel, AIR 2001 SC 1109, the Supreme Court held that where there was no material and there were no adverse entries in confidential record and that the respondent had successfully crossed efficiency oar at the age of 50 years as well as 55 years and was placed, under suspension pending disciplinary enquiry, the State Government had sufficient time to complete the enquiry. The Review, Committee did not recommend the compulsory retirement and that the respondents having less than two years of retirement, the order of compulsory retirement was passed on extraneous reasons. The authorities should have waited for the conclusion of enquiry and could not have decided to dispense the services of respondent merely on the basis of allegation which were not proved on record.
24. In the present case the record shows that the petitioner was transferred three times in the year 1996. He challenged his order of transfer from Bareilly to Gorakhpur, in this Court and that this Court in writ petition No 171 of 1997 stayed the order on the allegation of mala fides. The petitioner made a complaint to Sri Ram Singh who was serving as Deputy Labour Commissioner Bareilly with regard to incident in which he had gone to serve a copy of the order upon him. On the basis of this complaint Sri Ram Singh had given a show cause notice to the petitioner on 17.2.1997. In his counter affidavit Sri Ram Singh has denied the allegations against him with regard to the incident. In para 10 he further admits that he had given a show cause notice to the petitioner to which he had received a reply but the proceedings were not concluded. There is nothing on record to indicate as to what happened in the proceedings of show cause notice dated 21.2.1997 given by Sri Ram Singh to the petitioner. The same officer gave three adverse entries against the petitioner dated 30.6.1997, 26.6.1998 and 7.7.1999 out of which last two entries were given while sitting at Kanpur in respect of the years 1996-97 (part), 1997-98 and 1998-99 (part). All these entries relate only to the assessment of work. The substance of these entries is that the petitioner is not carrying out the number of inspections required from him; did not initiate sufficient number of prosecutions and did not produce the list of inspection before him. On the basis of these assessment he conclude that the officer is negligent in performance of his duties and responsibilities.
25. The entries do not show that there were any allegation of misconduct, misbehavior, or any complaint was received against the petitioner. Apart from the assessment of work which includes the assessment inspections and the production of diary and the list of establishment, there was no material to conclude that the petitioner’s work and conduct was not satisfactory. There was no reported incident to suggest that the petitioner had misbehaved with officers. I find that there was absolutely no reason given, nor there was any material whatsoever to withhold the integrity of the petitioner. There was no other adverse entry on the service record of the petitioner except the three subject entries which were all given by Sri Rani Singh against whom there was a previous background and in which Sri Ram Singh had admitted that the Had given show cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner was promoted in the year 1995. The screening committee did not even care to consider or to even refer to the previous entries of the petitioner and the service record. The representation against the adverse entries were pending for two years. All these representations were decided in a hurry just on the eye of the meeting of the screening committee. The Deputy Labour Commissioner in his note for assisting the Labour Commissioner for disposing of the entries did not meet the grounds taken by the petitioner in challenging the adverse entries. He relied upon a report of Sri Nigam which was not given to line petitioner. With regard to the allegations of malafides, the Deputy Labour Commissioner observed that these allegations amount to insubordination. He did not find it proper either to establish it or to call for reply from Sri Ram Singh before submitting his note to the Labour Commissioner.
26. The initials made by the Labour Commissioner on 19.3.2002 on the report of the Deputy Labour Commissioner dated 18.3.2002 do not show application of mind at all. These initials do not establish that he has either read the report, or had gone through the record. The manner and method in which the representations were decided after about two years in violation of the Rules of 1995 and just a few days before the meeting of screen in committee shows a mechanical approach which does not serve the screening of natural justice and fair play. Learned Standing Counsel is correct in his submission that even uncommunicated entries can be considered and where the representations have not been decided, the entries along with representation can also be considered by the Screening Committee, but where the representations have been decided without application of mind and there are allegations of malafide which have not been considered and replied by persons against whom these allegations have been made, and that the proceedings in show cause notice given to the petitioner were not concluded, establish the allegations of malafide.
27. There was no complaint or material before the Deputy Labour Commissioner to with hold the integrity of the petitioner in the subject three assessment. The word ‘integrity’ has been defined in Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary as firm adherence to a code of esp moral artistic value incorruptibility and is a synonym of honesty. In order to withhold integrity or not to certify integrity of an officer, then must be positive material to arrive at the conclusion. The Government Orders dated 28.12.1959, 7.10.1966 3.7.1979, 10.12.1980, 16.5.1981 give the guidelines for with holding integrity certificates. A perusal of these Government Orders show that the award and withholding of integrity certificate is an integral part of annual confidential report of She work and conduct of Government Servant The object of granting integrity certificate is to root out and eradicate corruption. This function is to be discharged with great care. There should be no disposition to deal with it in a casual or mechanical fashion. If the reputation of Government Servant regarding his integrity is bad, the prescribed integrity certificate must be prepared and filled in. The consequence of with holding integrity or not certifying the integrity are very serious. By Government Order dated 7.10.1966, it was provided that all those cases where integrity has been withheld twice, must be referred to Administrative Tribunal and in addition the increment must be stopped.
28. There must be positive material on record to support and justify the withholding or for not certifying the integrity of a government servant and with regard to the circumstances which may lead to give such an entry and where the officer is at fault prompt departmental action should be taken. The integrity should not be withhold or the certification refused on the ground suspicion or negligence and slackness in work. It means some thing more than assessment of work and has closed relation with the honesty of the person. Where-ever the integrity is withheld or not certified, the report must be based upon the material, and sufficient indication of such material must be given in recording such an entry.
29. The report of the screening committee shows that they considered only these three last entries. They did not care to find out, the previous entries of the officer or the entries subsequent to the year 1999-2000 and 2000-01. The assessment records that Salig Ram, Labour Enforcement Officer completely failed to discharge his duties and responsibilities of the post held by him, which puts a question mark on his utility to the department. I am not in complete agreement with the submission of Sri Anil Bhushan that such an assessment which does not affirmatively consider or recognizes about the work and conduct and only raises a doubt cannot be relied upon to retire a person in public interest. The object of the compulsory retirement is chop off dead wood and to give honorable farewell to the employee before his retirement without causing stigma upon him. Such a farewell cannot be given on only raising a doubt on his ability to work.
30. A consideration of entries given to the petitioner shows that the officer recording the entries was not satisfied with the petitioner’s work. That by itself is not a ground to hold that the petitioner had become a dead wood, and had lost his utility to the department. The failure to initiate required number of prosecution, directive and for timely production of diary before senior officer could not be a ground to retire him in public interest.
31. For the aforesaid reasons, I find that the petitioner’s representations against adverse entries were not decided apply his mind and that the manner and method in which the representations were decided was arbitrary and unfair. The Screening Committee did not consider the previous and subsequent entries in the annual confidential roll of the officer and only raised a question on the assessment of his worm and utility to the department. It did not positively report about his utility after assessing his entire work and conduct and thus the opinion of the appointing authority to retire him in public interest was not justified and is vitiated. I further find that Sri Ram Singh was prejudiced against petitioner and allegations of malafides are proved against him.
32. Both the writ petitions are consequently allowed. The adverse entries to the petitioner for the years 1996-97, 1977-98 and 1998-99 and the order dated 19.03.2002 as well as communication of the order dated 6.4.2002 rejecting petitioner’s representations against adverse entries and the order dated 24.4.2002 passed by the Labour Commissioner, U.P. compulsorily retiring petitioner in public interest and the consequential letter dated 27.4.2002 are set aside. The petitioner shall be given continuity of service and with all consequential benefits. The petitioner is also held entitled to Rs. 5,000/- as costs of these two writ petitions.