IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.285 of 2025 Date of Decision: 25.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Naveen Nishchal …….Petitioner Versus C.Paulrasu & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. C.N.Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State. Mr. Naveen K.Pathania, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Pursuant to order dated 26.05.2025, respondents No. 1 & 3 have come present, whereas respondent No. 2, on account of leave, has not been able to come present. Mr. C.Paulrasu, Secretary (Horticulture) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, while referring to the reply filed by the respondents, states that though on account of closure of project, no work is available, but yet services of the petitioner have not been terminated and as such, it is wrong for the petition to say that his services have been terminated. Officer named 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 hereinabove further states that since project is closed and no funds are available, it may not be possible to release the salary, but since similar issue is pending adjudication before this Court in bunch of petitions, which have now been ordered to be listed on 30.07.2025, case at hand can be disposed of with the observation that same shall abide by the outcome of cases listed before this Court on 30.07.2025. 2. Having taken note of the fact that services of the petitioner have not been terminated as is claimed by the petitioner, coupled with the fact that cases involving similar dispute are coming for hearing on 30.07.2025, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and accordingly, the same is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file afresh, if required after disposal of main petition. Notice issued to he respondents are discharged. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 25, 2025 (Sunil)