Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner confines this writ application against the order, as contained in annexure 6, only. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that his date of birth has been changed by virtue of the order, as contained 6 dated 31.10.1996 without giving him an opportunity of hearing. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the date of birth of the petitioner, as entered into his service book, was 15.9.1939, which has been changed by the authority by the order impugned as 15.9.1935 and no prior notice was given to the petitioner for this alteration. 5. Mr. Rajeshwar Prasad, Government Pleader No. 6, however, submits that prima facie, interpolation was found in the service book, so far the date of birth of the petitioner is concerned, and, accordingly, the same has been altered from 15.9.1939 to 15.9.1935. However, learned counsel is not in a position to say as to whether any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. 6. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 7. From the order, as contained in annexure 6, ex facie, it appears that the petitioner was not heard before altering his date of birth. 8. An employer may change the date of birth of its employee, but after due notice. 9. Since the order impugned appears to have been passed in violation of the principles of Natural Justice, in my opinion, the same is not sustainable in law. 10. From the materials on record, it appears that the petitioner even treating his date of birth as 15.9.1939 must have retired by 30th September, 1997. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, this application is allowed, order impugned, as contained in annexure 6, is set aside and the authorities concerned are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law and after due notice to him for the purpose of computation of his pension etc.