ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. The case related to date of birth. 3. The petitioner entered in the services of Ranchi Municipal Corporation on 29th December, 1973 as Sweeper. Her service book was opened immediately thereafter wherein her date of birth was recorded as 8th March, 1947. 4. Suddenly, the respondents changed the date of birth of petitioner vide order dated 28th July, 2000 and asked the petitioner to superannuate from 30th June, 2000. 5. Faced with the situation the petitioner had to move this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1742 of 2000 (R), wherein this Court directed the authority to decide the representation. It has been rejected by impugned order dated 28th July, 2000. 6. The respondents were allowed time to file counter affidavit and were also directed to produce the service book/service role. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed and the service book has been produced. 8. The case of the respondents is that the Administrator of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation constituted a Medical Board and the date of birth of petitioner and others were assessed on the basis of assessment of age made by the Medical Board. On the basis of report of Medical Board the date of birth was altered in the service book of the petitioner. 9. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the petitioner was informed that the respondents intended to change the date of birth, nor there is anything on the record to, suggest that any notice was given to the petitioner prior to change of her date of birth. 10. From the service role produced, it is evident that the date of birth of petitioner was recorded as 8th March, 1947 and has been subsequently changed to 3rd June, 1942 without any notice. 11. Now it is settled law that the authorities cannot change the date of birth of any employee at any moment without any notice to the employee (refer AIR 1967 SC 1269 Bina Pani Dey v. State of Orrisa.) 12. In the present case, the respondents have also failed to give any reason to re-open the question relating to date of birth after long period. 13. In the facts and circumstances, the action of respondents being illegal, the impugned order dated 28th July, 2000 is set aside. In the present case, the respondents have also failed to give any reason to re-open the question relating to date of birth after long period. 13. In the facts and circumstances, the action of respondents being illegal, the impugned order dated 28th July, 2000 is set aside. The petitioner will continue in the service upto the date of superannuation on the basis of original date of birth as was recorded in her service role i.e. 8th March, 1947. 14. So far as the salary of the intervening period is concerned, the respondents having forced the petitioner not to work, will pay full salary. 15. The writ petition is allowed.