2025:HHC:35444 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13935 of 2025 Decided on: 17.10.2025 Ms. Sapana Dhiman .… Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and another …. Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Ms. Anchal Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Sharmila Sharma Patial, Additional Advocate General, Mr. Sushant Keprate, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “i. That writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued, quashing and setting aside the impugned rejection Office Order dated 28-03-2025, Annexure P-7, wherein representation of the petitioner has been rejected illegally, in the interest of justice. ii. That writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued, quashing and setting aside HP Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024 being complete violation of Constitutional mandate, in the interest of justice. iii. That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing respondent department to treat petitioner regular employees of the State Government with effect from the date 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:35444 of her initial engagement/appointment i.e. 2010 with all consequential benefits in terms of the various judgments passed by this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice. iv. That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing respondent department to release all the due and admissible service benefits in favour of present petitioner w.e.f. due date, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance of the petitioner was vis-a-vis Annexure P-7, which in the interregnum, stands rescinded. 3. In light of said development, these proceedings are closed as having been rendered infructuous. It goes without saying that as far as other issues raised in this petition are concerned, the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise them afresh, if so advised, by way of appropriate proceedings. 4. The petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge (Romesh Verma) Judge October 17, 2025 (Rishi)