S. B. SINHA, CJ. ( 1 ) THE question which fell for consideration before the learned andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal was as to whether the date of birth recorded in the Service Register could be altered to the detriment of the petitioner without compliance with the principles of natural justice. The learned Tribunal, however, did not grant any relief to the petitioner and dismissed the Original Application by judgment dated 17th September, 2001. ( 2 ) IT is not in dispute that an opportunity of hearing had not been afforded to the petitioner. The petitioner had contended that as per the entry originally made in the Service Register he attains the age of superannuation on 28-2-2005. ( 3 ) THE learned Government Pleader accepts that an opportunity of hearing had not been afforded to the petitioner. According to the learned Government pleader, the date of birth was recorded by way of a mistake. Even if a mistake has been committed by the State, as the same has its civil consequences, having regard to the decision of the Apex Court in Bhagwan shukla v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 2480 , the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity of being heard. Furthermore, having regard to the decisions of the Apex court in Slate of Orissa v. Bina Pani Dei, air 1967 SC 1269 and Sarajoo Prasad v. General Manager, AIR 1981 SC 1481 , the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity of being heard in the matter. This aspect of the matter has also been considered by one of us (Satyabrata Sinha, CJ) in Aditya Kumar ghorai v. Durgapur Projects Ltd. , 1999 (1) slr 323. ( 4 ) KEEPING in view the admitted position that principles of natural justice had not been complied with before altering the date of birth of the petitioner in the service Register, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Tribunal as also the proceedings dated 28-6-2001 passed by the fourth respondent cannot be sustained. They are set aside accordingly. The writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.