JUDGMENT P.P. Naolekar, C.J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Parties. 2. The Petitioner was appointed in the Department of Power, Govt. of Nagaland on 21.9.1969 as W/C Jugali Gr-III under the Respondent No. 5. Later on the Petitioner became W/C Assistant Lineman in the said department. Initially the Petitioner's date of birth was recorded in the service records as 16.9.1950 at the time of appointment of the Petitioner. That in the seniority list dated 22.11.78 published by the department the Petitioner's name appeared at SI. No. 7 and the Petitioner's date of birth was recorded as 16.9.1950. The department published another seniority list of its employees dated 20.4.81 where the Petitioner's name appeared at SI. No. 3 of W/C Assistant Lineman and his date of birth has been shown as 16.9.1950. It is the case of the Petitioner that his father late Utsab Sahu was also serving in the same department where the Petitioner is serving and his father's date of birth has been shown as 3.5.1927 in the seniority has dated 22.11.78 and 20.4.81. His father retired taking into consideration his date of birth, strangely, the Petitioner's sendee has been terminated on the plea of his attaining the age of superannuation of 57 years and by the impugned order dated 18.2.98 he has been released from service w.e.f 30.9.97. It is the case of the Petitioner that as per his correct date of birth i.e. 16.9.1950, he has not reached the age of superannuation of 57 years on 18.2.98. 3. At the time of admission of the writ petition on 24.8.2001 notice was accepted by the learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate on behalf of the State. Till today no counter has been filed by the State denying the allegations made by the Petitioner. Thus it can be safely assumed that the allegations made in the writ petition are admitted by the Respondents. 4. From the impugned order it is clear that for the post held by the Petitioner the age of superannuation is 57 years. When the Petitioner's date of birth is correctly recorded as 16.9.1950, the date on which he was forced to retire, on alleged attaining the age of superannuation he has not completed the age of 57 years and he would be completing 57 years only in the month of September, 2007. When the Petitioner's date of birth is correctly recorded as 16.9.1950, the date on which he was forced to retire, on alleged attaining the age of superannuation he has not completed the age of 57 years and he would be completing 57 years only in the month of September, 2007. The Petitioner having been born on 16.9.1950 could not have been forced to retire w.e.f. 30.9.97, on his alleged attaining the age of superannuation. That being the position the order dated 18.2.98 passed by the Executive Engineer (E), Transmission Division, Dimapur, Nagaland releasing the Petitioner from service w.e.f. 30.9.97 is set aside. The Respondents are directed to take back the Petitioner in service immediately. The Petitioner shall be entitled for all the back wages and all other service benefits which might have accrued during the absence of the Petitioner in service, as per the relevant Rules applicable. 5. The writ petition stands disposed of