IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 982 of 2026 Date of Decision: 31.07.2026. _____________________________________ Sh. Lakhveer Singh …….Petitioner. Versus Sh. Rajesh Dhiman ….… Respondent. _____________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Bonit Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, Additional Advocate General. _____________________________________ Romesh Verma , Judge (oral): The instant petition has been filed alleging non- compliance of the judgment rendered in CWP No. 1347 of 2026, titled Sh. Lakhveer Singh Vs. State of HP and others, decided on 24.2.2026. 2. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent has placed on record copy of the office order dated 31.7.2026, whereby the representation as filed by the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 petitioner has been ordered to be dismissed by passing a detailed order, whereby the claim as set up by the present petitioner has been rejected, relevant portion of the same reads as under: “ “xx xx xx NOW THEREFORE, the undersigned, after considering all facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the direction passed by the Hon'ble High Court in the CWP No. 1347/2026 which directed the respondents to consider and decide the petition on the basis of judgment in Manmohan's case, the case of the petitioner has been considered and it appeared that the Manmohan's case judgment supra, the same being under challenge the benefit thereof in the instant matter cannot be extended at this stage as the State Government has not accepted the said decision and assailed the same by filing LPA wherein the Hon'ble Court has stayed the operation of the judgment dated 2-09-2025 in CWP No.8987/2024, hence the decision of Hon'ble Court in said judgment has not attained finality in accordance with law and petitioner cannot be granted his prayer for grant of induction to the post of pump Attendant immediately on completion of 12 years of service as Jal Rakshak on fixed honorarium at this stage until the decision in Manmohan case attained finality in accordance with law. The case has been accordingly considered and decided in aforesaid terms.” 2. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the instant petition, 3 with liberty to challenge the said order before the competent Court of law. 3. In view of above, the petition is dismissed as having been withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for. (Romesh Verma), Judge 31st July, 2026 (Guleria)