JUDGMENT :

C. Praveen Kumar, J.

1. The present Writ Petition came to be filed seeking the following reliefs:

"(a) to issue an appropriate writ, direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari declaring the order dated 29.11.2018 passed in O.A. No. 172 of 2018 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently, set aside the same, and

(b) to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in accepting the premature retirement application of the petitioner dated 9.10.2017, by orders dated 31.10.2017 is contrary to the Law, illegal and violative of the established rules and guidelines contained in the Indian Railway Establishment Code Vol- II and

(c) to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in not accepting the applications dated 04.12.2017 and 20.12.2017 for withdrawal of premature retirement application/notice of the petitioner vide orders dated 09.01.2018 is contrary to the Law, illegal and violative of the established rules and guidelines contained in the Indian Railway Establishment Code Vol-II and

(d) to issue Writ of Mandamus or any order or orders of like nature, directing the respondents to issue necessary orders for resumption of service of the petitioner as Divisional Commercial Manager, East Coast Railway, Visakhapatnam and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

2. Aggrieved by the orders dated 29.11.2018 passed in O.A. No. 172 of 2018 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, the present Writ Petition came to be filed.

3. The facts which lead to filing of O.A. are as under:

The applicant - Writ Petitioner was appointed as Law Assistant in South Eastern Railway on 18.5.1993, on being selected through Railway Recruitment Board, Kolkata. While he was working as a Law Assistant -Chief Law Assistant under Senior Deputy General Manager, East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, went on deputation to the Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-Corruption Branch (Visakhapatnam) as Special Public Prosecutor and worked there from 18.2.2005 to 31.7.2006. Thereafter, he worked as Administrative Officer Grade-II, Group-B post under the Sardar Vallabhai Patel National Police Academy in Hyderabad on deputation. While working in Academy, the petitioner appeared for the selection test to the post of Assistant Commercial Manager, East Coast Railway, Khurdha and on selection to the said post on 29.12.2009, he joined the same on 2.8.2010. Thereafter, he was promoted as Divisional Commercial Manager, East Coast Railway, Visakhapatnam and worked there till 31.10.2017. While working as Divisional Commercial Manager, the petitioner submitted an application to the 2nd respondent along with a copy to respondents 3 to 5, seeking premature retirement on 9.10.2017 under Rule 1802 (1)(a)(b) and (2) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code. This request was made on the ground that the applicant was under a depressed mental state of mind.

4. It is also to be noted here that he made an application withdrawing his premature retirement application for which two representations dated 4.12.2017 and 20.12.2017 came to be made indicating reasons for withdrawal, of premature retirement. His application for premature retirement was accepted by the 2nd respondent and the order of acceptance of premature retirement was also communicated to the petitioner. The main ground was that acceptance of premature retirement by the authorities, does not satisfy the requirement of Rule 1802 (1)(a)(b) read with note 3 of 1805 of IREC Volume-II and as such it is non est in the eyes of law. It is thus pleaded that the respondents ought to have rejected his application dated 9.10.2017 for voluntary retirement and MOU dated 31.10.2017 as it is in violation of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Vinod Kumar v. State of Haryana and Ors. AIR 2014 SC 33.

5. The request of the petitioner for withdraw