JUDGMENT 1. - The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are as follows: The petitioner was serving as Store Munshi under the Assistant Engineer, 1st Sub-Division, 28th D.N., Nachhana I.G.N.P., Camp Phalodi. It appears that he moved the Chief Engineer, Rajasthan Canal Project, Bikaner for correction in his date of birth entered in the record. It appears that originally the date of birth as recorded was 28.8.1929. The Chief Engineer after due consideration of the material adduced before him passed an order Ex. 3 whereby the date of birth was held to be 11.7.1932. The Chief Engineer, accordingly, directed the Superintending Engineer of concerned circle to make correction in the Service record of the petitioner. It appears that inspite of such direction and order, the petitioner was retired in the afternoon on 31.8.1984 by order Ex. 4. 2. The petitioner challenged this order of retirement and the appropriate Government made a reference to the Judge, Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Jodhpur in the following terms: D;k lgk;d vfHk;Urk mi[k.M izFke 28oka [k.M ukpuk] jkt] ugj bfUnjk xka/kh ugj) ifj;kstuk QykSnh }kjk Jh jkeflag pkSgku LVksj eqa'kh dks 55 o"kZ dh vk;q ij lsok fuo`r djuk mfpr ,oa oS/k gS\ ;fn ugha rks ;g Jfed fdl jkgr o jkf'k dks izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA After hearing the parties, the learned Judge passed an award answering the reference in the affirmative. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Judge completely went wrong in understanding the controversy raised before him. The case of the petitioner was that the correction in his age had been ordered by passing order Ex. 3 by the Chief Engineer whereby he was to get all benefits on the basis that his date of birth is 11.7.1932, yet the Assistant Engineer chose to ignore Ex. 3 and passed an order Ex. 4 holding that a wireless message has been received from the Chief Engineer revoking Ex. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he had specifically claimed before the judge, Industrial Tribunal & Labour Court that no notice had been given to him prior to revocation of Ex. 3 which created a valuable right in his favour. He submits that the learned Labour Court did not consider this aspect at all and hence the award passed by it stands vitiated. 3 which created a valuable right in his favour. He submits that the learned Labour Court did not consider this aspect at all and hence the award passed by it stands vitiated. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is prayed that the matter need not be remanded to the learned Tribunal but the Chief Engineer, Rajasthan Canal Project, Bikaner may be directed to hear him and decide if Ex. 3 needs revocation. The learned Addl. Govt. Advocate submits that Ex. 3 had been corrected by the Chief Engineer and there should be no question of re-hearing. He, of course, concedes that there is no material available on record to show that a notice had been given to petitioner before revocation of Ex. 3 was made. He further submits that unless entries in the service record had been made in pursuance of Ex. 3, Ex. 3 did not become effective. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have considered the rival contentions raised by them. 5. In my opinion, determination of age by competent authority is a quasi judicial matter. Order Ex. 3 shows that the Chief Engineer ordered correction of the age of the petitioner to 11.7.32. Such a quasi-judicial order could have been revoked only after giving due notice to the petitioner, and not otherwise. The petitioner has specifically taken the stand that no notice was given to him prior to alleged revocation of Ex. 3. This has not been controverted before me and the admitted position is that Ex. 3, which created a valuable right in favour of petitioner was unilaterally revoked without hearing him. 6. The contention that Ex. 3 did not become effective because correction in service record was not made pursuant to Ex. 3 deserves to be noticed only for the sake of rejection. Correction in service record pursuant to Ex. 3 was only a clerical act and if this clerical action was not taken, it could not nullify Ex. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been fair in submitting that the matter need not be remanded to the Labour Court but the Chief Engineer, Rajasthan Canal Project, Bikaner itself may be directed to issue notice to the petitioner and then decide whether Ex. 3 calls for any revocation or not. In the facts and circumstances of the case. I am inclined to accept this request. 7. 3 calls for any revocation or not. In the facts and circumstances of the case. I am inclined to accept this request. 7. I, therefore, order that the Chief Engineer, Rajasthan Canal Project, Bikaner shall give proper opportunity of hearing before deciding if Ex. 3 needs revocation at all. He should take such proceedings within a period of three months from today. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions this writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. In view of the directions given above, award Ex. 1 becomes infructuous and is set aside. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.Petition disposed of. *******