IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 17376 of 2025. Decided on : 24 th September , 2026 Kalpana Greik ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Bhavya Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3. Ms. Komal Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. The petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside of office letter dated 16.10.2025 (Annexure P-2). 2. Following order was passed on 31.12.2025: “CMP No. 29684/2025 Neither reply nor instructions have been filed. Heard. The petitioner is aged 61 years. Petitioner’s grievance is that after her superannuation, the respondents intend to recover an amount of ₹3,35,842/- from her on account of alleged overpayment made to her in the past towards gratuity. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner superannuated on 31.05.2022 and that the recovery is sought to be effected pursuant to office order dated 13.11.2025, and keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 and others, the recovery intended to be effected from the petitioner vide office order dated 13.11.2025 (Annexure P3) shall remain stayed. The application stands disposed of accordingly. CWP No.17376/2025 Reply be filed within three weeks. List thereafter.” 3. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for respondent No.4 has placed on record office letter dated 24.09.2026 from the office of Principal Accountant General, H.P. conveying that the impugned office letter dated 16.10.2025 be treated as null and void. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that office letter dated 24.09.2026 has been issued withdrawing previous office letter dated 16.10.2025 in view of correspondence received by respondent No. 3 from respondents No.1 and 2. 4. Taking note of the above, the writ petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous, since the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 24th September, 2026. (jai)