H. K. Sema, J.— This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.10.96 passed by the learned Single Judge in CR No.813 of 1996. 2. We have heard Mr. Ng Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant at some length. 3. The facts leading to the filing of this present appeal may be summarily recited. The writ petitioner passed Matriculation Examination in the year 1956 bearing Roll Imphal No.539. The age of the writ petitioner recorded in the Matriculation Certificate was 17 years 6 months on the 1st March, 1956. Thereafter, he entered into the service in 1959. The date of birth recorded in his service book was 1.8.39 at the time of entering into service. This was corrected by the respondents/Government as on 1.9.38. According to the corrected age the petitioner was due to retire on 31.8.96. Accordingly, by an order dated 27.8.96 the petitioner was ordered to retire on 31.8.96 (AN) on attaining the age of superannuation. Being aggrieved the appellant has filed a writ petition numbered as CR No.813 of 1996. The learned Single Judge after hearing the petitioner's counsel at length dismissed the petition as no case is made out. Hence, the appeal. 4. There is no dispute of the age of the petitioner recorded in Matriculation Certificate on 4.8.56. As already said, according to the Matriculation Certificate the age of the petitioner was 17 years 6 months on the 1st March, 1956. Taking the age of the petitioner 17 years 6 months on the 1st March, 1956, the date of birth of the petitioner/appellant is 1.9.38. Therefore, the age of the petitioner recorded as 1.8.3 9 at the time of entering into service was erroneously recorded due to wrong mathematical calculation. The respondents/ Government, therefore, can correct the mathematical error at any point of time. It is not the question of alteration of the age recorded in the Service Book. It is the correction of the mathematical error, pure and simple. 5. It is, therefore, contended by Mr. Ng Kumar Singh that the correction has been made behind the back of the petitioner and in violation of the principle of natural justice inasmuch as the petitioner has not been afforded any reasonable opportunity before the correction was made. 6. It is also submitted by Mr. Ng. 5. It is, therefore, contended by Mr. Ng Kumar Singh that the correction has been made behind the back of the petitioner and in violation of the principle of natural justice inasmuch as the petitioner has not been afforded any reasonable opportunity before the correction was made. 6. It is also submitted by Mr. Ng. Kumar Singh that the correction has been made at the belated stage at the fag end of the service of the writ petitioner. 7. The rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. Application of rule of natural justice, therefore, depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In order to sustain the complaint of violation of the rule of natural justice, the petitioner must be established that prejudice has been caused to him for non-observance of the rule of natural justice. In the instant case, as already stated that there was a mathematical error crept in at the time of recording the date of birth in the Service Book, that methematical error was correctly rectified. In such a situation, no prejudice has been caused to the writ petitioner/appellant. The fact that the correction has been made without hearing the appellant has o sustance because in such situation hearing of the appellant would make no difference because no prejudice has been caused to the appellant. At the same time, when such error is detected it is upto the respondents/Government to rectify such methematical error at any point of time as and when detected. Therefore, the submission of Mr. Ng. Kumar Singh that this mathematical error has been rectified at the fag end of his service has also no substance. At the same time, if such mathematical error was not corrected, it would cause enormous loss to the public exhequer because the writ petitioner would be allowed to serve even after he attained the age of superannuation. In such a situation, it would not only have affected the public interest but also has chain reaction because persons who are having a legitimate expectation for promotion to the post would be deprived of such privilege and also it would create unemployment problem in the low rank. 7. In the result, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. However, without costs. 8. It is, further, submitted by Mr. Ng. 7. In the result, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. However, without costs. 8. It is, further, submitted by Mr. Ng. Kumar Singh that the writ petitioner has not been getting any pensionary benefit till now. It is hoped that the respondents/Government shall see that the petitioner gets his all pensionary , benefits as expeditiously as possible.