IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 7926 of 2022 with CWPs No. 8575, 8602, 8614 and 8697 of 2022 Decided on: 24.04.2025 CWP No. 7926 of 2022 HFCL Limited … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents CWP No. 8575 of 2022 HFCL Limited … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents CWP No. 8602 of 2022 HFCL Limited … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents CWP No. 8614 of 2022 HFCL Limited … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents CWP No. 8697 of 2022 HFCL Limited … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. 2 Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Karun Negi, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in all the petitions. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Addl. AG. for respondent-State in all the petitions. : M/s Rohit Sharma and Anuj Gupta, Advocate for the private respondent(s) in all the petitions. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner- HFCL Limited submitted that all these writ petitions, with the passage of time, have lost their efficacy for the reason that the private respondents/workmen have superannuated during the pendency of the petitions and whatever was due to them post superannuation already stands paid to them. It is disputed by learned Counsel appearing for the private respondents that they have been paid their entire dues. Be that as it may, taking into consideration the fact that the workmen/respondents have already superannuated, without making any observation qua the other submissions made by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner(s), these petitions are closed as having become infructuous. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge April 24, 2025 (narender) 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?