IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10361 of 2024 Date of Decision: 20.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Suhago Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sat Prakash, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Since, it is not in dispute that pursuant to order dated 18.09.2024, petitioner herein was permitted to serve the respondent- Department till she attained the age of 60 years, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present proceedings. 2. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of as having rendered infructuous. However, it is clarified that consequential benefits, if any, pursuant to petitioner’s continuation in service in terms of order dated 18.09.2024, shall 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 abide by the outcome of SLP filed by the respondent-State in Satya Devi’ case. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 20,2025 (shankar)