HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.26647 of 2007 Dated: February 11, 2008 Between: Chiluka Vykuntam, S/o. Ramulu, aged 46 years, Occ: Timberman, R/o.H.No.30-69, Abraham Nagar, Mandamarri, Adilabad District. … Petitioner And The General Manager, Singareni Colleries Co. Ltd., Mandamarri, Adilabad District, and another. … Respondents Order: This writ petition is filed seeking Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not giving a suitable place on surface to the petitioner on humanitarian grounds as arbitrary and illegal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondents. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that petitioner was appointed as a Coal Filler in the year 1983, thereafter promoted as Timberman in 1987 and presently working in Kasipet mine, under the control of respondents. It is stated that he is suffering from orthopedic disorder to his knees. The case of the petitioner is that he is presently attending to roof-bolting work, which is a tough job, and due to the orthopedic disorder, he is facing lot of trouble to execute the said work. His grievance is that though he orally requested the respondents to assign moderate duties to him on surface, no action was taken and he was advised to retire voluntarily. Petitioner, along with the writ petition, has filed a copy of the certificate issued by an Orthopedic Surgeon certifying that he is suffering from orthopedic disorder to his knees. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents submits that petitioner is not regular to duties and is a habitual absentee and disciplinary proceedings have also been initiated against him for unauthorized absence. 5. Even according to the learned Standing Counsel for respondents, petitioner attended duties upto 17-12-2007 and is now presently assigned the job of roof-bolting. In view of the illness of the petitioner, what is the kind of work that is to be assigned to him cannot be determined by this court and the same is in the domain of the respondents. The plea of illness of the petitioner by itself does not confer any legal right on him to seek directions by way of Mandamus. 6. In the circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition permitting the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondents, enclosing the opinion and certification of doctors, which he had relied on in support of his plea with regard to illness. If any such representation is received by the respondents, they shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY. February 11, 2008 MRR