The petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is assailing the order of release dated 25.10.1994 which would take effect from 13.10.1994, on the grounds, inter alia, that the petitioner was illegally released before she attained her age of superannuation in terms of the date of birth recorded in the Certificate of the High School Leaving Certificate Examinations which she had passed in 1987. According to the Government initially when she joined service as a Lower Primary School Teacher at the village, the date of birth was shown as 14.12.1934. 2. The petitioner joined service in 1969. According to the petitioner no date of birth was recorded at the time of her initial entry into service. No such information was sought for, whatsoever at that time. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of the policy of the Government to encourage the teachers to equip themselves better by passing certain examinations, she had also sat for the HSLC Examinations in 1987 and she passed the same. It is averred by the petitioner that the service book which was subsequently prepared by the department was at no time shown to her during the tenure of her service as school teacher. She was never called upon to verify the entries made in the service book maintained by the department. One peculiar feature which I have noticed during the course of arguments is that if as contended on behalf of the Government the date of birth of the petitioner was indeed furnished at the initial entry of service of the petitioner as 14.12.1934, she would indeed have retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation of 57 years sometime in 1991. As noticed above, the order of release was issued on 25.10.1994 making it effective retrospectively from 13.10.94. The order of release reads as under : “In pursuance of the Govt order No. EDS (E)-19/91 (Pt-1) dated Kohima the 1st August, 1994 and the Director of School Education Order No.ED/EL/M/1/91-92 dated Kohima 7th October, 1994 Smti Asangla Jongshi P/T Salangtem Mokokchung is hereby released from the service with effect from 13.10.94 (AN) on superannuation.” There is no ambiguity that the petitioner was released from service on attaining the age of superannuation. There is no order of extension of service issued in favour of the petitioner. This position is not disputed at the Bar. There is no order of extension of service issued in favour of the petitioner. This position is not disputed at the Bar. My one difficulty is that Government has not filed counter affidavit, nor has the Government made any of the relevant records including the service book available at the time of hearing for the perusal of this Court. Indeed I have received no assistance whatsoever from the Department to enable me to decide 'the case justly and on the basis of authenticated materials which only the Government could produce before this Court. It is indeed unfortunate that such situation often arises in Government cases. I do not know whom to blame. For me the entire Government machinery is blameworthy. Prima facie the service book of a particular Government servant should speak volumes and would be of great assistance to the Court to decide the case in a very fair and reasonable manner. This has not been possible in the present case also. That apart, I am shocked to note here that in spite of several efforts made by the learned Junior Government Advocate, no response whatsoever has been received from the Government. He has produced as many as six copies of letters he had written to the Government and also to the Director of Education and one letter was addressed to the Superintendent of the Secretariat. It is not necessary for me to give details of these letters inasmuch as it is a matter that transpired between the Government Advocate and the department concerned. The purpose of my having a look at these letters is to simply appreciate that at least the Government Advocate who often faces so much embarrassment in the Court room has made sincere efforts to receive some kind of instructions. The image of the department in such a situation is simply a matter of shame. How can we expect a department to run in this manner. 3. As far as the date of birth which is stated to have been recorded in the service book as 14.12.34 is concerned, as I have stated before, if I am to accept this contention made on behalf of the Government, the petitioner was made to serve another 3 (three) years or so from the actual year of superannuation. But such would not have been possible in the absence of validly issued order of extension in this regard. 4. But such would not have been possible in the absence of validly issued order of extension in this regard. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that on coming to know sometime in 1991 that her date of birth was entered as 14.12.34, she represented to the competent authority for amendment of her date of birth. Her specific plea was that in terms of the certificate of the High School Leaving Certificate Examinations, entry in the service book should be made and the date of birth should be shown as 14.12.41. That prayer was made on 31st November, 1991. On 12 February, 1993 Joint Secretary to the Government addressed a letter to the Director of Education conveying “approval on change of date of birth in respect of Smti Asangla Jongshi Primary Teacher.” The letter further states as follows : “I am directed to refer to your letter No.ED/EL/7/91 -92/354 dated 21 st March, 1992 on the above subject and to say that date of birth given in the HSLC Admit Card on 14.12.41 should be taken into account.” On 7th March, 1994 Joint Secretary to the Government again wrote to the Director as follows : “I am directed to refer to your letter No.ED/EL/E/7/91 -92 dated 26.3.93 on the above subject and to inform that order issued vide letter No. EDS (E)-19/91 (Pt) dated 12.2.93 will stand.” Thereafter on the 1st of August, 1994 Deputy Secretary to the Government wrote another letter to the Director of School Education to the following effect: “I am directed to refer to your letter No.ED/EL/E/7/91 -92/94 dated 23rd June, 1994 on the above subject and to say that the date of birth of Smti Asangla Jongshi Primary Teacher recorded in the service as on 14.12.1934 should be followed. Government order No. EDS (E)-19/91 (Pt) dated 12.2.93 and 7.3.94 are cancelled henceforth.” This order of cancellation has aggrieved the petitioner. The main ground taken by the petitioner is that this order of cancellation could not have been issued inasmuch as the earlier two orders had been passed by competent authority of the same Government after the request of the petitioner for amendment of her date of birth in the service was complied with. According to Mr. The main ground taken by the petitioner is that this order of cancellation could not have been issued inasmuch as the earlier two orders had been passed by competent authority of the same Government after the request of the petitioner for amendment of her date of birth in the service was complied with. According to Mr. BN Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner such prayer for amendment of date of birth was allowed after making necessary enquiry and after satisfaction that the prayer of the petitioner was a reasonable one. It is also further submitted that the impugned order of cancellation issued by the Deputy Secretary on 1st August, 1994 cannot be sustained inasmuch as no opportunity whatsoever was given to the petitioner of being heard before such order of cancellation was issued. Hence it is submitted that this order of cancellation was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Obviously no notice was directed before the order of cancellation was issued. If that be so, the order of cancellation is indeed in violation of the principles of natural justice. It appears if the amendment of petitioner's date of birth which had been allowed by the earlier 2 (two) orders referred to above was to be cancelled by a subsequent order, there must be full justification for doing so and such can be borne out only by relevant record. However, it appears no further enquiry whatsoever was made inasmuch as this order of cancellation dated 1st August, 1994 does not refer to any enquiry or as notice or hearing of the petitioner before such order was issued. It may once again be stated that if the stand of the Government that initially the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 14.12.34 is to be accepted then under what circumstances the petitioner should have been released with effect from 13.10.94 ought to have been sufficiently explained in the Government order. In otherwords on what yard-stick the order of release was issued on 25th October, 1994 making it effective from 13.10.94. Further, by what calculation this date of superannuation of 13.10.94 has been arrived at as the date of retirement of the petitioner? As I have stated above, if we are to calculate the date of birth of the petitioner from 14.12.34 the petitioner would have retired by 31st December, 1991 in terms of FR 56, Note 6. Further, by what calculation this date of superannuation of 13.10.94 has been arrived at as the date of retirement of the petitioner? As I have stated above, if we are to calculate the date of birth of the petitioner from 14.12.34 the petitioner would have retired by 31st December, 1991 in terms of FR 56, Note 6. 5. I have heard Mr. BN Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Junior Government Advocate at length. Learned Junior Government Advocate submits that the prayer for amendment of date of birth was indeed made at very belated stage and indeed at the fag end of the service of the petitioner. This according to him is contrary to the rules prescribed in this behalf. The accepted norm it is submitted, is that if any correction or amendment is sought to be made a request in this regard should be made at the earliest and within five years from the initial entry into service. As such according to learned Junior Government Advocate the prayer made by the petitioner for amendment of her date of birth in 1991 could not have been considered. At this stage, I may point out that factually the prayer was allowed by the Government. As stated above there are two Government orders in this regard. However, by the 3rd order issued by the Deputy Secretary, the earlier orders of the Government were cancelled on 1st August, 1994. In support of his contention, learned Junior Government Advocate relies on a decision reported in AIR 1993 SC 2647 . He has drawn my attention to para 7 of the said decision and argues that any such prayer for amendment of date of birth at the fag end of service is unhealthy and is not to be accepted by this Court or by and Tribunal deciding such a matter. I must point out once again that in the present case the petitioner's request for amendment of her date of birth was considered by competent authority and the prayer was allowed. Once the prayer was allowed and order was issued, in my view, right was already accrued to the petitioner and such right cannot be altered or snatched away by a subsequent order of cancellation to the detriment of the petitioner and, that too, without any notice and indeed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Once the prayer was allowed and order was issued, in my view, right was already accrued to the petitioner and such right cannot be altered or snatched away by a subsequent order of cancellation to the detriment of the petitioner and, that too, without any notice and indeed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned Junior Government Advocate further refers me to office memorandum dated 220th November, 1973. Among other things the said office memorandum states: “The date of birth for all Govt employees as recorded initially in Matriculation Certificate or at the time of joining service should be taken as final and no change should be made to such records except clerical error or patent mistakes which shall be fully investigated before correction at the Government level. It has further been decided that the Government shall rely on the Matriculation Certificate and for date of birth unless this is corrected by the appropriate authority, no such claim will be entertained by the Government.” In the case at hand, the petitioner joined service before she passed Matriculation Examination. In 1991 she made the request for amendment of her date of birth on the basis of High School Leaving Certificate Examinations. In a subsequent office Memo dated 11th March, 1990, it was stated : “1. For such Government employees who enter service after Matriculation the date of birth as recorded in the Matriculation Certificate shall be taken as final. 2. For such Government employees who passed Matriculation after entry into service, the date of birth as recorded in the service of Record Book at the time of entry into Government service shall be taken as final.” Normally I would have accepted clause 2 of the above notification. However, in the present case I have a real difficulty in doing so. How could I accept 14.12.1934 as the date of birth of the petitioner. The reasons is as stated earlier, if this date is accepted by me then I must be satisfied that there is also another order by which extension was given to the petitioner after the age of superannuation. There is no such thing. Clearly the date of 14.12.1934 cannot be the foundation for issuing order of release of the petitioner from service. It appears there is no application of mind in the present case by the competent authority which had issued the order of release on 25.10.1994. There is no such thing. Clearly the date of 14.12.1934 cannot be the foundation for issuing order of release of the petitioner from service. It appears there is no application of mind in the present case by the competent authority which had issued the order of release on 25.10.1994. By no stretch of imagination can 13.10.1994 be the date of superannuation inasmuch as by that time the petitioner had already reached the age of about 60 (sixty) years if 34.12.1934 is to be the foundation. In view of this I am also led to think that although it is unimaginable that date of birth would not have been entered at the time of initial entry into service, it appears to be correct in the present case inasmuch as otherwise Government should be able to give a date which would clearly lead to the conclusion that on 13.10.1994 or for that matter on 31.12.1994 the petitioner would have reached the age of superannuation, ie, 57 years in the State of Nagaland. At the same time it appears it would be very unfair and unreasonable to alter Government decision to allow the date of birth of the petitioner as recorded in the High School Leaving Certificate Examinations certificate by another Government order which is impugned in the present case. It appears Government had examined the record before the amendment of date of birth was allowed and it was found that no entry of 14.12.1934 was made in the service book. If such date had been found, it would have been reflected in Government orders. 6. In the result, this petition is allowed. Order of release issued on 25.10.1994 making it effective from 13.10.94 issued by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Mokokchung is quashed. Also the order dated 1st August, 1994 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Govt of Nagaland is quashed. The date of birth of the petitioner shall be the date as recorded in the certificate of the High School Leaving Certificate Examinations ie, 14.12.1941. The petitioner shall report to the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Mokokchung for receiving order of posting and assignment. In view of my finding above, the petitioner shall be deemed to have been in service without break. As such she shall be entitled to back wages all throughout. Petition is disposed of.