IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 16514 of 2008 Between: Bhupla Madanaiah, S/o. late Durgaiah, R/o. 20-1-98/30, Godavari Khanni, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Chief Manager, Personnel, Singareni Colleries Company Limited, Kothagudem, Khammam District. 2 The General Manager, Singareni Colleries Company Limited, Ramagundam, Area III, Karimnagar District. 3 Divisional Engineer, Singareni Colleries Company Limited, Ramagundam, Area III, Karimnagar 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 declaring the action of the Respondents in retiring the petitioner in March, 2009 by putting it as after competition of 60 years as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondents to continue the Petitioner till he attains the age of superannuation i.e. March 2016. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.Y.ASHOK RAJ Counsel for the Respondents: MR.NANDIGAM KRISHNA RAO The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner claims to have joined the service of Singareni Collieries in the year 1984 and that since he was an illiterate, his age was determined by the Medical Oﬃcer, who, in turn, is said to have certiﬁed that his age is 28 years as on 07.03.1984. He states that in the ordinary course, he is to retire on 31.03.2016, but, his superior has informed him that he would be retired in the year 2009 itself. He claims to have made a representation to the respondents seeking necessary relief to enable him to continue in service up to 2016 and complains that no action has been taken thereon. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. This Court does not ﬁnd any cause of action for the petitioner to approach this Court, as of now. The reason is that neither he was informed by his Appointing Authority about the date of retirement, nor any communication was given in this regard. In case the petitioner had any doubt about the entries made in the service records and the consequential date of retirement, he can, certainly, submit an application for furnishing the copies of entries made in the service records. Basically, the petitioner is entitled, as a mater of right, to get such information and even otherwise, the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, enable him to secure such information. Even if this exercise is not undertaken, the petitioner can raise the dispute as and when he is issued any communication intimating the date of his proposed retirement. Under these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to seek necessary information from the employer, as to the date of retirement from service together with the entries in the service records and work out his remedies accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:31.07.2008 kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS}