2026:HHC:14112-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.926 of 2023 Decided on: 29.04.2026 Sh.Kuldeep Kumar Thakur & others … Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner: Mr. Anuj Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Hemant Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Ms. Ranjana Pathania, Advocate, vice Ms. Archna Dutt, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Respondent No.5 ex parte. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(a). That the Respondents may kindly be directed to produce the records of the case. (b). That the Respondent No. 1 and 2 may please be directed to grant the benefit of regularization to the petitioners from due date i.e .w.e.f 1st January, 2008. (c). That the Respondent No. 1 and 2 may please be directed to draw the Final Seniority List of Class IV employees of the Department by placing the petitioners above the names of 'Respondent No. 3-5, and effect the promotions to the post of Clerks accordingly.” 2. Annexure P-7, dated 26.12.2022, demonstrates that earlier also, the petitioners had approached this Court by way of 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:14112-DB CWP No.4887 of 2022, titled Sh. Kuldeep Kumar Thakur & others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others, which petition was disposed of by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court on 26.12.2022 as under:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the present writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to be withdrawn. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of.” 3. Learned Counsel for the respondents has handed over a copy of the earlier petition filed by the petitioners and perusal thereof demonstrates that in the said writ petition, same and similar reliefs were prayed for, as are prayed in this petition. To be more precise, the prayers made therein are quoted hereinbelow:- “a). That the Respondents may kindly be directed to produce the records of the case. (b). That the Respondent No. 1 and 2 may please be directed to grant the benefit of regularization to the petitioners from due date i.e .w.e.f 1 January, 2008. (c). That the Respondent No. 1 and 2 may please be directed to draw the Seniority List of Class IV employees of the Department by placing the petitioners above the names of Respondent No. 3-5 and effect the promotions to the post of Clerks accordingly.” 4. When the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioners was withdrawn by them before the Hon’ble Division Bench, no liberty was sought by them to file a fresh petition on the same cause. 5. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sarguja Transport 3 2026:HHC:14112-DB Service Versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior and others, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 88, has been pleased to hold that it is common knowledge that very often after a writ petition is heard for sometime and when the petitioner or his Counsel finds that the Court is not likely to pass an order admitting the petition, request is made by the petitioner or by his Counsel, to permit the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition, without seeking permission to institute a fresh writ petition. A Court which is unwilling to admit the petition, would not ordinarily grant liberty to file a fresh petition, while it may just agree to permit the withdrawal of the petition. Hon’ble Supreme Court further went on to hold that it is plain that when once a writ petition filed in a High Court is withdrawn by the petitioner himself, he is precluded from filing an appeal against the order passed in the writ petition, because he cannot be considered as a party aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court. Hon’ble Supreme Court, thereafter, held that the point for consideration is that whether a petitioner after withdrawing a petition filed by him in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, without the permission to institute a fresh petition, can file a fresh writ petition in the High Court under that Article. The issue has been answered in the negative by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in terms of the findings returned in Para-9 of the said judgment, which are quoted hereinbelow:- “9. The point for consideration is whether a petitioner after withdrawing a writ petition filed by him in the High 4 2026:HHC:14112-DB Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without the permission to institute a fresh petition can file a fresh writ petition in the High Court under that Article. On this point the decision in Daryao's case (supra) is of no assistance. But we are of the view that the principle underlying rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code should be extended in the interests of administra- tion of justice to cases of withdrawal of writ petition also, not on the ground of res judicata but on the ground of public policy as explained above. It would also discourage the litigant from indulging in bench-hunting tactics. In any event there is no justifiable reason in such a case to permit a petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution once again. While the withdrawal of a writ petition filed in a High Court without permission to file a fresh writ petition may not bar other remedies like a suit or a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India since such withdraw- al does not amount to res judicata, the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be deemed to have been abandoned by the petitioner in respect of the cause of action relied on in the writ petition when he withdraws it without such permission. In the instant case the High Court was fight in holding that a fresh writ petition was not maintainable before it in respect of the same subject-matter since the earlier writ petition had been withdrawn without permission to file a fresh petition. We, however. make it clear that whatever we have stated in this order may not be considered as being applicable to a writ petition involving the personal liberty of an individual in which the petition- er prays for the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus or seeks to enforce the fundamental fight guaranteed under 5 2026:HHC:14112-DB Article 21 of the Constitution since such a case stands on a different footing altogether. We however leave this question open.” 6. Thus, in light of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case a petition is withdrawn by the petitioner or Counsel without the leave of the Court to file a fresh petition on the same cause, then a fresh petition on that very cause under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. 7. Herein, though learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the earlier petition was withdrawn, as some assurance was given by the employer that the grievance of the petitioners shall be looked into, but the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench does not suggests so. If that was the case, obviously the petitioners should have been prudent to have had withdrawn the petition with liberty to file a fresh on the same cause, which has not been done. 8. Therefore, in light of the fact that as this writ petition filed, i.e. the present petition, is not maintainable in light of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India referred to hereinabove, the petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge April 2 9 , 2026 (Rishi)