D. K. SETH, J. The petitioner was asked to retire on attainment of 58 years of age by a notice contained in Aennxure 7 to the writ petition being dated 21st August, 1995 informing him that he would be retir ing with effect from 1st March, 1996 on account of attainment of 58 years of age on 29th February, 1996. Subsequently, another letter dated 16th November, 1995 contained in Annexure 10 was issued to the petitioner informing him that he would be retiring on 30th June, 1996 and the date 29th February, 1996 mentioned in the letter dated 21st August, 1995 is to be read as 30th June, 1996. These two notices have been challenged by means of this writ petition on the ground that the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded in the service record as 2nd February, 1940 on the basis of the High School Certificate. Therefore, the petitioner ought to retire on 1st March, 1998 when he would be completing 58 years of age. 2. Mr. S. C. Budhwar, learned Coun sel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. Arun Tandon contends that the U. P. Recruit ment in Service (Determination of date of Birth) Rules, 1974 were adopted by the respondent on 20th June, 1975 and as such the provision of the said Rules would not be applicable in a case where the date of birth is already corrected or recorded before the enforcement of the said Rules. According to him, in the service record original date of birth was recorded as in June, 1938 but the same was corrected as on 2nd February, 1940 on the basis of High School Certificate on 29th April, 1974. The said 1975 Rules came into force on May 28, 1974. Therefore, according to him if the 1974 Rules cannot be applied in that event, it could not be said that the petitioners age could not be corrected, simply because that the petitioner had passed the High School Examination after his entry into the service. He next contends that the service book was corrected by the respondents themselves and had allowed the same to continue even till today and has not yet been corrected and as such, the respondents are estopped from challeng ing the same or ignoring the same. He next contends that the service book was corrected by the respondents themselves and had allowed the same to continue even till today and has not yet been corrected and as such, the respondents are estopped from challeng ing the same or ignoring the same. Accord ing to him, unless the said date of birth is corrected in the service book and the date of birth as in June. 1938 is restored, the respondents cannot be compelled the petitioner to retire on the basis of the date of birth since been scored out and sub stituted by 2nd February, 1940. He next contends that even if the date of birth recorded at the time of entry could be restored, the same can be done only by means of correction of the date of birth after giving an opportunity to the petitioner. There having been no oppor tunity given and no step having been taken to correct the date of birth, it was not open for them to retire the petitioner on the basis of the deleted date of birth. Mr. Budhwar had also relied on a circular is sued by the Department on 17th Decem ber, 1974, a copy whereof was reproduced on 15th February, 1975 being Annexure SA-1 to the Supplementary Affidavit in order to contend that before 1974 Rules were adopted the date of birth could be corrected on the basis of the said circular taking into account the High School Cer tificate irrespective of the date as to when the examination was undertaken, namely, before or after entry into service. Accord ing to him the correction was made on 20th April, 1975 on the basis of this cir cular dated 17th December, 1974. There fore, according to him the notice could not be sustained. He further contends that by reason of interim order granted in this writ petition, the petitioner had continued till 28th February, 1998 and since had retired on 1st March, 1998. 3. Mi. Arvind Kumar, learned Coun sel for the respondents on the other con tends that the order dated 17th December, 1974 cannot be resorted to or relied upon by the petitioner since the application thereof was confined to the incumbents mentioned in the DO letter referred to therein which were in respect of the employees of the Lucknow Electric Supp ly Undertaking, Lucknow. The petitioners name was not mentioned in the list of Lucknow Electric Supply Un dertaking, Lucknow. Since the petitioner had at no occasion been employed there, therefore, no benefit could be derived out of the said circular dated 17th December, 1974. He further contends that the correc tion was made on 20th April, 1975 whereas the U. P. State Electricity Board had adopted the said 1974 Rules on 20th June, 1975, namely, only three months before the application of the said Rules were at tracted. According to him, under the said Rules age cannot be corrected on the basis of a High School Certificate if such certifi cate is obtained after the entry into the service. Therefore, according to him, the correction could not have been carried out. He further contends that the above correction must have been corrected sur reptitiously immediately before the enfor cement of the 1974 Rules. Therefore, the petitioner having taken advantage of a situation, which according to him is wrongful, the petitioner cannot now derive any benefit out of his own wrong which he had obtained. He further con tends that in any event, by reason of the 1974 Rules since been adopted by U. P. Slate Electricity Board, the date of birth could not be corrected on the basis of High School Certificate obtained by the petitioner after his entry into service. He next contends that in case the date of birth is accepted in that event, the petitioner would be less than 18 years and be dis qualified to enter into the service and as such he cannot be allowed any benefit of such date of birth. Therefore, the writ peti tion should be dismissed. 4. I have heard both the Counsel at length. 5. So far as the circular dated 17th December, 1974, is concerned, as rightly contended by Mr. Arvind Kumar, the same cannot be attracted in the case of the petitioner. No benefit there out could be derived for the purpose of correction of the date of birth in the service record by the petitioner. Inasmuch as it is apparent from the text of the said circular that the same was confined to the incumbents mentioned in the DO. letter concerning the Lucknow Electric Supply Undertak ing, Lucknow. Admittedly, the petitioners name was not mentioned in the said DO letter Though Mr. Inasmuch as it is apparent from the text of the said circular that the same was confined to the incumbents mentioned in the DO. letter concerning the Lucknow Electric Supply Undertak ing, Lucknow. Admittedly, the petitioners name was not mentioned in the said DO letter Though Mr. Budhwar contended that a copy was forwarded to Allahabad for necessary information and action means that it was applicable even in respect of the petitioner who was in Allahabad. But this contention does not appeal to me. Even if a copy is forwarded to Allahabad for infor mation and necessary action but the order itself having confined to the incumbents mentioned in the DO letter employed in Lucknow Electric Supply Undertaking, Lucknow, the same cannot be extended to anyone else other than those mentioned in the DO letter. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be derived any benefit there out as contended by Mr. Budhwar. 6. Admittedly, the 1974 Rules were adopted by U. P. Stale Electricity Board on 20th June 1975. Thus on 20th April, 1975, the 1974 Rules have no application. Therefore, the provisions contained in 1974 Rules to the extent that the dale of birth cannot be corrected on the basis of a High School Certificate if such examina tion is passed after entry into service, can not be applied. On the other hand, in the absence of any provision it was open to the respondents to correct the date of birth. Il was also open to the respondents to refuse to correct the date of birth on the basis of the High School Certificate produced in April, 1974. But once such correction is made on the basis of such High School Certificate, it is no more open to the respondents to ignore the same and resile therefrom. Admittedly, the corrections are signed by the competent officer. Mr. Arvind Kumar in his usual fairness has not disputed that the corrections were initialled and signed by the competent of ficer. The original date that was men tioned at the time of initial appears to have been deleted or scored out. The said scor ing out is also signed by an officer as is apparent from the Annexure CA-I which is a xerox copy of the service book of the petitioner. The original date that was men tioned at the time of initial appears to have been deleted or scored out. The said scor ing out is also signed by an officer as is apparent from the Annexure CA-I which is a xerox copy of the service book of the petitioner. After having corrected the date of birth, the respondents cannot compel the petitioner to retire on the date of birth which had since been deleted. Inasmuch as, on the service record the date of birth as 2nd February, 1940 was prevailing on being substituted after deleting the date of birth recorded at the time of entry. 7. However, it was open to the respondents to correct the date of birth in the service record if it was of the opinion that it was wrongfully entered in the ser vice record and the correction made on 1974 was incompetent or inconsistent. But admittedly, no correction of the date of birth 2nd February, 1940 has been made even till today. The said date of birth is still figuring in the service record as is apparent from Annexure CA-I. Then again, in case the respondents wanted to correct the same or decided to retire the petitioner on the basis of the deleted date of birth recorded at the time of entry, in that event, it was open to them to initiate appropriate proceeding for correcting the same by is suing a notice to the petitioner asking him to show cause why the date of birth should not be corrected. It may not necessarily imply that a personal hearing is to be given but it implies that the explanation so given was to be considered and decided by the respondents. Mr. Arvind Kumar had relied on the decision in the case of Execu tive Engineer, Bhadrak (R&b) Division, Orissa and others v. Rungadhar Mallik, 1993 (1) UPLBEC 58, and contended that an opportunity of hearing is not necessary while correcting the date of birth when refusing the representation seeking cor rection of date of birth. The said decision on the basis that the representation may be decided but that does not entail giving of personal hearing. The said decision does not lay down a proposition that cor rection can be made even without giving notice. The said decision on the basis that the representation may be decided but that does not entail giving of personal hearing. The said decision does not lay down a proposition that cor rection can be made even without giving notice. Though it can be done without giving hearing but it must follow that it has to be done after giving notice and con sidering the show cause or reply of the petitioner. Such consideration may not imply giving of personal hearing but still then the candidate should be given an op portunity to show cause why the date of birth should not be corrected through a written reply or representation as the case may be. Therefore, in the facts and cir cumstances of the case, the said decision does not apply. In as much as, in the present case no notice was ever issued to the petitioner asking him to show cause as to why the date of birth should not be corrected. On the other hand, a simple notice was given that he would be retiring on 1st March, 1996 which was replaced by a further notice by fixing the date as on 30th June, 1996. This notice cannot suffice to satisfy the purpose of show cause of giving opportunity. Then again, this notice simply says that the petitioner was due to retire on attainment of 58 years of age on the date mentioned therein. It has never mentioned that the respondents proposed to correct the date of birth in the service record in order to retire him on the basis of the deleted date of birth recorded at time of entry. 8. The date of birth which was recorded in the service record if sought to be corrected as in the present case reduc ing by two years in that event, it will pre suppose inflicting of the civil conse quence. As soon there was civil conse quence, it implies that an opportunity is to be given to the incumbent who would suf fer such civil consequence. Therefore, without giving an opportunity to show cause, the date of birth could not be cor rected and without correcting the same, the petitioner could not be asked to retire on the basis of deleted date of birth despite the date of birth having been recorded and maintained in the service record as on 2nd February, 1940. Mr. Therefore, without giving an opportunity to show cause, the date of birth could not be cor rected and without correcting the same, the petitioner could not be asked to retire on the basis of deleted date of birth despite the date of birth having been recorded and maintained in the service record as on 2nd February, 1940. Mr. Budhwar had relied on the decision in the case of State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and others, AIR 1967 SC 1269 . In the said decision, it was held that the State Government was not precluded from holding enquiry simply be cause the date of birth was entered in the service register but for the purpose of refixing the date of birth. But such decision is to be passed upon the result of an enquiry held in a manner consonant with the basic concept of justice. In the present case, no enquiry at all has held for refixing the dale of birth. There was also no attempt for refixing the date of birth. On the other hand, the petitioner was sought to be retired on the basis of the deleted date of birth recorded at the time ofentry without refixing the date of birth in the service record. As observed earlier, there was no enquiry and there was no opportunity. The process adopted by the respondents does not suit the concept of justice. Mr. Budhwar had also relied on the decision in the case of Shariful Hasan v. State of U. P. and others, 1982 U. P. Service Cases 428, wherein it was held that entry in the service hook once corrected cannot he resorted to by entering the old date of birth to the prejudice of the employee without giving him an opportunity. In the said decision however, an opportunity was referred to as an opportunity of hearing. . However, in view of the decision in the case of Executive Engineer, Bhadrak (supra) the opportunity cannot he ex tended to the grant of hearing. But the fact remains that opportunity of hearing may not he given hut still an opportunity is a must. 9. . However, in view of the decision in the case of Executive Engineer, Bhadrak (supra) the opportunity cannot he ex tended to the grant of hearing. But the fact remains that opportunity of hearing may not he given hut still an opportunity is a must. 9. As it appears in the present case that the attempt to retire the petitioner on the basis of the deleted date of birth recorded at the time of entry appears to he wholly illegal and arbitrary particularly, when the date of birth in the service record is on 2nd February, 1940 which was still continuing when he was sought to he so retired. 10. Thus, it appears that there are substance in the submission of Mr. Budhwar as observed earlier. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders contained in Annexures 7, 10 and 14 are liable to be quashed and are accordingly quashed. Let a writ of certiorari do accordingly issue. 11. Admittedly, the petitioner had continued in service till attainment of 58 years of age on the basis of his date of birth as 2nd February, 1940 and had received his pay for the same period. Therefore, the petitioner be entitled to all service benefits as if he retired on attainment of 58 years on the basis of date of birth as 2nd February, 1940 on 1st March, 1998, It would be open to the petitioner to make the representation for payment of his ser vice benefits before the concerned respon dents. The concerned respondents shall decide the said representation and ensure the payment of all retiral benefits of the petitioner, as admissible in law as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of making such rep resentation. 12. With these observations, the writ petition is allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs. 13. Let a certified copy of this order be given to the learned Counsel for the petitioner on payment ol usual charges. Petition allowed. .