IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4784 of 2009 Between: G. Koteswara Rao, S/o. Late Kanakaiah, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chairman & Managing Director, AP Genco, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. 2 The Director(HR), AP Genco, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. 3 The Chief Engineer O & M, K.T.P.S. Palvoncha, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dt. 22-1-2009 made to the respondents to set aside the Memo No. CE/O &M/KTPS/ADM/B2/D.No. 142/08 dt. 24-6- 2008 issued by the 2nd respondent and declare that the fixing of age of superannuation of the petitioner on 31-5-2009 by taking wrong date of birth as 04-5-1981 instead of fixing of age of superannuation of the petitioner on 31-5-2013 instead of actual date of birth 04-5- 1995 is bad in law. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.D.L.PANDU Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM(SC FOR AP GENCO) The Court made the following : ORDER The petitioner joined the service of Andhra Pradesh Electricity Board in the year 1975. His date of birth was mentioned as 4.5.1951. He claims that his correct date of birth is 4.5.1955. According to him, his date of birth as entered in the school records is 4.5.1955. The respondents referred the case of the petitioner for Medical Board. The Medical Board, according to the petitioner, has not been examined him. The respondents informed him that his date of superannuation is 31.5.2009. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not subjected to medical examination by the Medical Board as directed by the respondents and therefore, necessary direction is required to be given to the respondents to consider his representation and pass appropriate orders. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri Chidambaram, learned Standing Counsel of AP Genco received notice on behalf of the respondents. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that he made a representation on 22.1.2009 to the respondents for correction of his date of birth and his representation has not been disposed of so far. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 22.1.2009 and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. __________ 12-03-2009 Note: Issue CC by three days. (B.O)rkk