JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J. Petitioner seeks direction to the respondent to regularize his services w.e.f. 01.04.2015 with all consequential benefits of pay arrears, seniority, pensionary benefits etc. alongwith interest @9% per annum. 2. Facts 2(i) Petitioner was appointed as Senior Assistant (Accounts) in the respondent-Himachal Pradesh Road & Other Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (HPRIDC) on 01.01.2009 on contract basis. Petitioner continued to discharge his services as such. With the grievance that his services, ought to be regularized as Senior Assistant w.e.f. 01.04.2015 on completion ofrequired number of years of service as per the Policy of regularization framed by the State of Himachal Pradesh, petitioner instituted Ravinder Singh & Anr. Vs. HPRIDCL & Anr. , [CWP No. 2218/2019 decided on 07.12.2021] A copy of the petition was produced by learned counsel for the petitioner during hearing of the case. Relief clause from the said petition reads as under:- “That appropriate writ order or direction may very kindly be issued directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners as Senior Assistant (Accounts) on completion of required number of years as per the policy of regularization framed by the State of Himachal Pradesh on and with effect from 01.04.2015 with all consequential benefits of pay, arrears, seniority etc., in the interest of law and justice.” 2(ii) During pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, respondent-corporation under agenda item No. 101.18 (Annexure P-2) proposed to adopt regularization policy of the State of Himachal Pradesh notified on 07.05.2015 for regularizing the services of contractual employees including the petitioner retrospectively w.e.f. 01.04.2015. In terms of the Minutes Book (Annexure P-3) the Board deliberated Item No. 101.18 and took the following decision:- “The Managing Director of HPRIDCL, is authorized to take the final decision on the matter in consultation with the ACS (Finance) to the GoHP.” The matter was processed further. The Finance Department on 19.10.2021 (Annexure P-4) advised the respondent-Corporation to regularize the services of the officials as per the Policy and orders of the Government of Himachal Pradesh issued from time to time subject to the condition that they are otherwise eligible for regularization. Pursuant to this, respondent-Corporation considered the case of the petitioner for regularization, in terms of the Regularization Policy of the State dated 07.05.2015 (Annexure R-1) regarding regularization of services of contractual appointees. Pursuant to this, respondent-Corporation considered the case of the petitioner for regularization, in terms of the Regularization Policy of the State dated 07.05.2015 (Annexure R-1) regarding regularization of services of contractual appointees. As per the policy, the State of Himachal Pradesh had decided to regularize the services of contractual appointees after completion of 5 years of service as on 31.03.2015. As per Clause 10 of the Policy, regularization was to be with prospective effect i.e. from the date of issuance of regularization order. Accordingly, office order was issued by the respondent on 12.11.2021 regularizing the service of one Sh. Ravinder Singh and the petitioner on completion of three/five years of contractual service by them with prospective effect. 2(iii) Ravinder Singh’s case (supra) (petitioner’s previous writ petition) was listed before the Hon’ble Division Bench on07.12.2021, when following order was passed:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw the petition. 2. Ordered accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.” 2(iv) Two years after withdrawing the writ petition, the petitioner instituted this writ petition on 24.11.2023 with the grievance that his regularization was required to be from retrospective date on completion of five years of service w.e.f. 01.04.2015 with consequential benefits of pay arrears, seniority etc. alongwith interest. The substantive relief prayed in this writ petition is as follows:- “(i) That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued, thereby directing the respondent to regularize the services of the petitioner on and with effect from 1.4.2015 with all consequential benefits for pay, arrears seniority, pensionary benefits etc. etc. and the arrears may be paid alongwith interest @6% p.a. (ii) That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued, thereby directing the respondent to count the contract services of the petitioners for all intents and purposes including pay, arrears seniority, pensionary benefits and other consequential benefits by paying him arrears along with interest @9% p.a.” 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 4. Consideration The relief prayed for in the instant writ petition had also been prayed for by the petitioner in Ravinder Singh’s case(supra). During the pendency of the previous petition, respondent had issued office order on 12.11.2021, regularizing the contractual service of the petitioner with immediate effect. Presumably, based upon the aforesaid order, the petitioner had withdrawn Ravinder Singh’s case(supra) on 7.12.2021. During the pendency of the previous petition, respondent had issued office order on 12.11.2021, regularizing the contractual service of the petitioner with immediate effect. Presumably, based upon the aforesaid order, the petitioner had withdrawn Ravinder Singh’s case(supra) on 7.12.2021. No leave was taken by the petitioner from the Court for filing another petition for claiming relief of regularization from the retrospective date. Petitioner accepted office order dated 12.11.2021 regularizing his service with immediate effect. In view of given facts, petitioner cannot be permitted now to enter the door which he had himself closed. Doctrine of estoppel & acquiescence will also get attracted against the relief prayed by the petitioner in his this second petition. At this juncture, M.J. Exporters Private Limited Vs. Union of India & Others , [ (2021) 13 SCC 543 ] may be referred to, which held that issue abandoned expressly or by necessary implication at the time of abandonment/withdrawal of writ petition would be barred by principles of constructive res-judicata contained in Order 23 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure and these principles are extendable to writ proceedings, in a subsequent writ petition. Relevant paras from the decision are as under:- “13. Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel appearing for the Department, has drawn our attention to the Order dated 02.08.2004 which was passed in M.J. Exports (P) Ltd. V. Union of India, [Writ Petition No. 1278 of 2004 order dated 2.08.2004 (Bom)]. His submission was that in the earlier round of litigationbefore the High Court when the demand of interest was questioned, it was given up inasmuch as after arguments on this issue, the counsel for the appellant had withdrawn the writ petition. At that time, while allowing the appellant to withdraw the writ petition, the dispute was confined only to the calculation of interest as is clear form the order dated 02.08.2004 itself which specifically referred to the averments made in paragraphs 6 and 7. These paragraphs have already been extracted above. In paragraph 6 particularly, Respondent No. 1 made some remarks about the calculation of the interest and had stated that it needed re-calculation. Therefore, after the dismissal of the said writ petition as withdrawn, the only issue that remains for consideration was how much interest is payable and the correct calculations thereof. These paragraphs have already been extracted above. In paragraph 6 particularly, Respondent No. 1 made some remarks about the calculation of the interest and had stated that it needed re-calculation. Therefore, after the dismissal of the said writ petition as withdrawn, the only issue that remains for consideration was how much interest is payable and the correct calculations thereof. It is a matter of record which flows from the correspondence exchanged thereafter between the parties that insofar as Department is concerned, it only re-worked the amount of interest and demanded interest in the sum of Rs. 4,67,02,251/- after reducing the figure from 8,43,62,504/- because of the reasons already stated above. 14. Consequently in the second writ petition, when the appellant as well as its counsel knew that the issue as to whether the interest is payable or not on other grounds had already been foreclosed in the earlier writ petition, the counsel for the appellant did not make any submission with regard to the aforesaid plea raising the issue in Show Cause Notice and limited his prayer from the date from which the interest was to be paid. 15. In these circumstances, we feel that when this issue was raised and abandoned in the first writ petition which was dismissed as withdrawn, the principles of constructive res-judicata which is laid down under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and which principles are extendable to writ proceedings as well as held by this Court in ‘Sarguja Transport Service v. STAT , [ (1987) 1 SCC 5 ] would squarely be applicable.” The above decision follows the ratio in Sarguja Transport Service Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior and Others, (1987) 1 SCC 5 that if a writ petition is withdrawn without permission to file fresh, fresh petition on same cause of action is not maintainable. Rule of public policy as contained in Order 23 Rule 1 CPC applies. M.J. Exporters was followed in State of irissa Vs. Laxmi Narayan Dass , [ (2023) 15 SCC 273 ]. 5. In view of above, relief claimed for by the petitioner in the instant petition, cannot be granted to him. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.