Judgment :- 1. The Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to produce Nominal Muster Rolls of the Electrical Department and the Voucher Records Section of the Central Accounts Department for the period from 23.11.1968 to 15.7.1975 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to consider the period of temporary service of six years, seven months and twenty two days rendered by him as Time Keeper for the purpose of calculation of his terminal and pensionary benefits as was done in the case of similarly placed persons. 2. The Writ Petition was admitted on 3.4.2007. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent dated 1.3.2012. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that the petitioner was appointed as Switcher in the Electrical Department with effect from 16.7.1975. With reference to the earlier claim that he has worked as Time Keeper for about 6 years, there was no proof available except the two certificates issued by the Electrical Engineer during the years 1971 and 1978. Those Certificates were also general in nature and do not indicate the exact service. The petitioner cannot seek any documents after a period of 43 years and there were difficulties in tracing the Nominal Muster Rolls by the Corporation. The Certificates produced by him cannot be relied upon as they are vague. It is also stated that the Nominal Muster Rolls were seized by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department in connection with the criminal case relating to engagement of casual labourers. Hence, the petitioner's claim cannot be considered. 3. It must be noted that the petitioner himself came to this Court after 6 years after his retirement and did not rake up the issue while he was in service. Secondly, he cannot claim for an additional service without production of any documents. The petitioner's present claim that the old records should be produced also does not stand to reason in the light of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents Corporation. 4. Even under the Right to Information Act, the Supreme Court has held that though a person is entitled to have an information made available, the maintenance of the records depends upon the availability of the records and the Rules requiring the maintenance of such records for a particular period vide its judgment in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyayreported in (2011) 8 SCC 497 . In paragraphs 56 to 58, it was observed as follows: "56.) On behalf of the respondent examinees, it was contended that having regard to sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the RTI Act, there is an implied duty on the part of every public authority to maintain the information for a minimum period of twenty years and make it available whenever an application was made in that behalf. This contention is based on a complete misreading and misunderstanding of Section 8(3). The said subsection nowhere provides that records or information have to be maintained for a period of twenty years. The period for which any particular record or information has to be maintained would depend upon the relevant statutory rule or regulation of the public authority relating to the preservation of records. 57.) Section 8(3) provides that information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place and occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under Section 6, shall be provided to any person making a request. This means that where any information required to be maintained and preserved for a period beyond twenty years under the rules of the public authority, is exempted from disclosure under any of the provisions of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, then, notwithstanding such exemption, access to such information shall have to be provided by disclosure thereof, after a period of twenty years except where they relate to information falling under clauses (a), (c) and (i) of Section 8(1). 58.) In other words, Section 8(3) provides that any protection against disclosure that may be available, under clauses (b), (d) to (h) and (j) of Section 8(1) will cease to be available after twenty years in regard to records which are required to be preserved for more than twenty years. Where any record or information is required to be destroyed under the rules and regulations of a public authority prior to twenty years, Section 8(3) will not prevent destruction in accordance with the rules. Section 8(3) of the RTI Act is not therefore a provision requiring all “information” to be preserved and maintained for twenty years or more, nor does it override any rules or regulations governing the period for which the record, document or information is required to be preserved by any public authority." 5. Section 8(3) of the RTI Act is not therefore a provision requiring all “information” to be preserved and maintained for twenty years or more, nor does it override any rules or regulations governing the period for which the record, document or information is required to be preserved by any public authority." 5. In the light of the above, the petitioner having failed to prove his case, no relief can granted to him. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.