2025:HHC:13529 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6795 of 2024 Date of Decision: 09.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Sonika Kapoor & Ors. …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Naresh K.Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Pursuant to notices issued in terms of order dated 28.04.2025, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, has placed on record communication dated 07.05.2025, issued under the signatures of Director Health Services, Himachal Pradesh, perusal whereof reveals that as per proposal received from CMO Bilaspur with regard to present petitioners vide letter dated 22.02.2025, necessary ex post facto sanction for grant of study leave in their favour was accorded by the Directorate vide letter dated 07.04.2025. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. After coming to the knowledge of the complete factual position, Chief Medical Officer, Bilaspur, has been further directed by the office of Health Services, vide letter dated 06.05.2025 to immediately rectify the error made by his office. 3. Pursuant to aforesaid letter, BMO Ghumarwin, after having done needful, conveyed the decision to the petitioners, if it is so nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings. Since pursuant to request made by the petitioners, competent authority, after having followed due procedure of law, has already accorded necessary ex post facto sanction for grant of study leave vide communication dated 07.04.2025, pursuant to which petitioners supplied some documents, enabling competent authority to pass written orders, this Court is of the view that relief, as prayed for, otherwise stands granted to the petitioners and as such, nothing remains to be done. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition has been rendered infructuous and is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 09, 2025 (Sunil)