JUDGMENT : Daya Chaudhary, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not granting extension after his retirement at the age of 58 years on the ground that two days prior to his retirement, the charge sheet was issued. 2. Subsequently, the petitioner was exonerated in that charge sheet whereas learned State counsel submits that a well reasoned and detailed order has been passed, whereby, the petitioner is not entitled for extension as per instructions issued vide letter dated 30.04.2015 in spite of the fact that he has been exonerated. Photocopy of the said order passed by the respondents has been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner, who prays for withdrawal of the present writ petition with liberty to challenge the order passed subsequently. 3. Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.