IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 5259 of 2008 Between: 1 The General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. 2 The Chief Signal and Telecommunication Engineer, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. 3 The Chief Signal Engineer, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. 4 The Chief Personnel Officer, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. .....PETITIONERS AND Sri Selvin Jacob, S/o. (Late ) P T Jacob, O/o. Chief Singal and Telecommunication Engineer (Construction), South Central Railway, Railnilayam, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENT 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 a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Certiorari by calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 04-10-2007 in O.A. No. 579 of 2007 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.P.BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondent.: None appeared The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRIAH W.P. No. 5259 of 2008 O R D E R: (Per THE HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) This writ petition is filed against the order dated 4.10.2007 passed in O.A. No. 579 of 2007 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad. By the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the O.A. filed by the respondent – applicant holding the action of the petitioners herein in rejecting the representation of the applicant for voluntary retirement as illegal. Heard the learned standing counsel for Railways appearing for the petitioners and perused the material available on record. Though several grounds have been raised challenging the order passed by the Tribunal, a perusal of the material available on record shows that Rules 1802 (b) (1), 1802 (2) and 1803 (b) (1) of Chapter 18 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code Vol-I & II deal with voluntary retirement and the said Rules provide for taking voluntary retirement subject to the conditions stipulated therein. It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent has not followed any of the conditions stipulated in the Rules for opting voluntary retirement. The Tribunal, having considered the facts and circumstances and also the relevant rules, rightly held that the respondent has got every right to take voluntary retirement after giving due notice period of three months and that none of the rules under the abovementioned Chapter gives any discretion to the appointing authority to reject permission for voluntary retirement after expiry of three months period. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly set aside the action of the respondents in rejecting the representation of the applicant – respondent for voluntary retirement. Having perused the entire material available on record, we find no error or legal infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference of this Court. We find no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. T. MEENA KUMARI, J. G. CHANDRAIAH, J. Date: 12-03-2008. MVB.