IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9544 of 2025 Decided on: 9th July, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ram Bahadur …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Bonit Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Following order was passed in the matter on 17.06.2025:- “Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the petitioner is liable to return an amount of Rs.4,84,000/- to the respondents in view of law laid down in Civil Appeal No. 1595/2025 (State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Surajmani & Anr.) decided on 06.02.2025. His contention, however, is that this amount can be set off by the respondents against the arrears of pay due to the petitioner under 2016 Revision of Pay Scale. 3. Let the respondents to file reply/place on record instructions in this regard before the next date. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 4. List on 03.07.2025. CMP No.13141/2025 Disposed of as not pressed at this stage.” 2. Respondents had placed on record office instructions dated 28.06.2025. In terms of the office instructions, only Rs.15372/- is due to be released to the petitioner as arrears of revision of pay scale in pursuance to notification dated 03.01.2022 as against his liability to return an amount of Rs.4,84,000/-. 3. In view of office instructions, learned vice counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly submits that the relief, as prayed for by the petitioner, cannot be granted to him. In view of above fair submission, learned vice counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 09, 2025 Judge Mukesh