Judgment :- Nainar Sundaram, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 7511 of 1990. The appellant herein was the respondent in the writ petition. The respondent herein was the petitioner in the writ petition. For convenience sake, we are referring to the parties as per their nomenclature in the writ petition. 2. Mr. T.L. Ram Mohan, has taken notice for the petitioner. Considering the limited scope of the controversy raised in the writ appeal, we are proceeding to dispose of the same on merits, today itself. 3. The petitioner questioned the move on the part of the respondent to retire him from service on 1-7-1990 on the basis that as per the service register maintained with it, his date of birth fell in 1932. According to the petitioner, the date of birth was only 11-5-1935 and he would retire only three years later. The learned single Judge, who examined this controversy, rightly held that the proper forum for the petitioners to thrash out this controversy is the civil court. However, the learned single Judg e gave direction as follows— “In order to enable the petitioner to file such a suit and obtain interim order the court is inclined to grant such an order. There will be an order injuncting the respondents from superannuating the petitioner during the period till 31st March 1991. It is needless to state that the application for interim relief and the remedy in the main suit will be adjudicated upon based on facts and materials to be placed before the court uninflunced by any of the observations contained in this order.” The above direction has given room for the respondent to prefer this writ appeal. 4. From a perusal of the order of the learned single Judge, it is clear, there is a declining on his part to examine the controversy over the age of the petitioner, exercising writ powers. In State of Orissa v. Madam Gopal Rangta 1 , it was held as follows— “But when the court declined to decide on the rights of the parties and expressly held that they should be investigated more properly in a civil suit it could not be for the purpose of facilitating the institution of such suit, issue directions in the nature of temporary injunctions under Art. 226 of the Constitution. In our opinion, the language of Art. 226 does not permit such an action”. What the learned single Judge did come within the teeth of the above principles. Accordingly, we allow this writ appeal and set aside the direction given by thelearned single Judge as per the extract made above. No costs. 5. It is for the petitioner to approach the civil Court, if not he has already done that, and obtain the appropriate reliefs, including interim reliefs. Mr. T.L. Ram Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner expresses an apprehension that before his client could get any order from the civil court, he may be thrown out of service. We are sure that the respondent will act reasonably and not hastily to stultify the endeavour on the part of the petitioner, to seek the reliefs before the civilcourt.