ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 11.07.2017 passed by respondent No. 3, whereby, the petitioner has been ordered to be retired immediately. 2. The petitioner claims her date of birth as 08.01.1959 and the said date of birth was reflected in her service record. It is claimed that the date of birth reflected in the service record was entered after undertaking medical examination, which aspect is fortified from the document Annexure-P/5 dated 28.02.2017, wherein, the Dy. Conservator of Forest has indicated that the date of birth of petitioner indicated as 20.01.1960 was changed to 08.01.1959 based on report of medical board. However, based on the date of birth of petitioner as 04.05.1956, as indicated in the passport of the petitioner, the Dy. Conservator of Forest by the impugned order dated 11.07.2017 while indicating the following, retired the petitioner :— **iz/kku eq[; ou laj{kd] jktLFkku t;iqj ds i=kad] ,Q 15 ¼84½17@Mhv¨ch@Je@izeqola@1379 fnukad 11-07-2017 ds )kjk Jherh djher ifRu Jh dqrc [kka in csynkj ds ikli¨VZ esa vafdr tUe frfFk 04-05-1956 d¨ ekuus ,oa rRdky lsokfuo`r djus gsrq izkIr funsZ’k¨a ds vuqlj.k esa Jherh djher ifRu Jh dqrc [kka in csynkj d¨ rqjUr izHkko ls vkt fnukad 11-07-2017 d¨ n¨igj ckn jkT; lsok ls lsokfuo`r fd;k tkrk gSA** 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner before passing of the order impugned and the petitioner has been retired against her recorded date of birth. 4. Further, submissions have been made that the date indicated in the passport could not have been relied on by the respondents as the passport was prepared in the year 1996 and the examination by medical board was done in the year 2002 and whereafter the date of birth was indicated in the service record of the petitioner. It was submitted that for violation of principles of natural justice alone the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Reliance was place on judgment in Dev Prakash Sharma v. The State of Rajasthan: 2001 (4) WLC (Raj.). 793. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned. It was submitted that for violation of principles of natural justice alone the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Reliance was place on judgment in Dev Prakash Sharma v. The State of Rajasthan: 2001 (4) WLC (Raj.). 793. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned. It was submitted that the date of birth of petitioner is indicated as 04.05.1956 in her own passport and, therefore, as she had already attained the age of superannuation, she was rightly retired from service and the order, therefore does not call for any interference. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 8. A bare perusal of the record indicates that the date of birth entered in the service record of the petitioner was 08.01.1959 and, as such, the petitioner was due to retire on 07.01.2019 Based on the documents i.e. the passport, which came in possession of the respondents, the order impugned dated 11.07.2017 (supra) has been passed. 9. Admittedly, no notice whatsoever was issued to the petitioner before passing of the order dated 11.07.2017 and even the service record of the petitioner was not altered and the petitioner was ordered to retire from the said date. 10. Though no law in this regard is required to be cited as violation of principles of natural justice vitiates each action, this Court in the case of Dev Prakash Sharma (supra), inter alia, laid down as under:— “7. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the petitioner must succeed. The change of date of birth from 19.7.51 to 19.7.50 has been made without any notice to petitioner. According to petitioner his date of birth as entered in the certificate of Secondary School is 19.7.51, which was entered in the service book as well. If at all any change was to be made by the department, that could have only be made on some evidence, documents or any other reliable information that too, after giving due notice to petitioner, which provision suo moto at the back of petitioner, violating well settled principles of natural justice and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.” 11. In view of the above undisputed fact situation, the order dated 11.07.2017 passed by the respondents cannot be sustained and the same is, therefore, quashed and set aside. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated back in service forthwith with all consequential benefits. However, in case the respondents want to proceed against the petitioner afresh, they would do so following the principles of natural justice. 12. The consequential monetary benefits to the petitioner, pursuant to quashing of the order dated 11.07.2017, be granted to her within a period of three months.