JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. - The petitioner having disability to the extent of 60% being orthopedically handicapped has filed this writ petition with a prayer to extend his date of retirement also from 58 years to 60 years at par the visually impaired person consequent upon the notification dated 29.3.2013. He was due for retirement on attaining the age of superannuation on and w.e.f. 31st October, 2019 and stands retired on the said date. 2. Now the respondent-State vide office memorandum No. Fin(C)-A(3)-2/2013, dated 4th November, 2019 has withdrawn the notification dated 29th March, 2013, whereby a decision was taken to extend the retirement age of the visually impaired Government servants from 58 years to 60 years. 3. No doubt, as per the contentions and the case law cited in the writ petition, the retirement age of other physically impaired/disabled person including orthopedically handicapped like the petitioner has also been directed to be extended by two years further at par the visually impaired person, however, now when the respondent-State has taken a decision to withdraw the office memorandum/notification dated 29th March, 2013 providing for such extension to visually impaired person, in the changed circumstances the relief as sought in this writ petition cannot be granted without there being any challenge to the office memorandum whereby the previous notification/memorandum has been withdrawn as in that event the State Government may come forward with the version at execution stage that in view of the withdrawal of earlier notification/memorandum no such relief could have been granted. It may, therefore, be not possible to execute the judgment if passed on the basis of the material available on record at this stage. 4. The provision granting two years extension in service now ceases to exist, therefore, without there being any challenge to the memorandum dated 4th November, 2019, referred to hereinabove, perhaps no such relief can be granted. As a matter of fact without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner, he may challenge the office memorandum in accordance with law in separate and independent proceedings initiated for the purpose as even the amendment of this writ petition may also not serve the purpose because in that event it is likely to change the very nature of the dispute involved and the relief sought which is not legally permissible. Therefore, the only option available to the petitioner is to withdraw this writ petition with liberty reserved to file afresh, of course without prejudice to his rights and contentions raised in this writ petition. 5. Faced with such a situation, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition with liberty reserved to file afresh. Leave and liberty as sought is granted. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. 6. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.