CWP (T) No. 15461 of 2008. 4.6.2010 Present: M/s Neel Kamal Sood & S.S.Sood, Advocates, for the petitioner. Ms Anjula Khajuria, counsel for the respondent. CWP(T) No. 15461 of 2008. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No.1- Board may be directed to count daily waged service of the petitioner for the purpose of pension as has been held in State of H.P. and others vs. Sarab Dayal Latest HLJ 2007 (2) HP 1292 and thereafter petition may be disposed of in terms of judgement dated 4.3.2010 in CWP No. 1808 of 2007 and other connected matters. 2. The facts in brief are that petitioner was initially appointed on daily wage basis as Supervisor/ WM in respondent – Board on 6.7.1989. He was regularized on 12.6.1996. The petitioner had worked for about seven years on regular basis and on 24.6.2004, he was absorbed permanently in Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited (SJVN) and his technical resignation was accepted by the respondent - Board w.e.f. 15.9.2004. It has been submitted that pension and pensionary benefits of the petitioner are required to be released as has been done by the respondent with respect to other persons, namely Bhim Bahadur, Mohan Lal, Kundan Lal and Rajesh Singh etc. whose technical resignations were also accepted on their absorption in SJVN and one of the terms and conditions on their permanent absorption in SJVN was that they will be eligible to receive all retirement benefits as admissible under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied judgement dated 23.3.2010 passed by a coordinate bench of this Court in CWP(T) No. 15459 of 2008. 3. The respondent- Board had initially contested the claim of the petitioner by filing reply, however, at the time of hearing the learned counsel for respondent has admitted that the case of the petitioner is covered by judgement dated 23.3.2010 in CWP(T) No. 15459 of 2008 and Division Bench judgement dated 4.3.2010 in CWP No. 1808 of 2007 and other connected matters: State of H.P. vs. Chetru. The parties are not in dispute that now the case of the petitioner is covered by the judgement dated 23.3.2010 passed in CWP(T) No. 15459 of 2008 and Division Bench judgement dated 4.3.2010, therefore, the controversy in the present case is limited to what relief the petitioner is entitled. 4. The petitioner was engaged as daily wage Supervisor/ WM in respondent- Board on 6.7.1989 and regularized on 12.6.1996. Therefore, in view of Sarab Dayal’s case supra, half of the daily wage service rendered by the petitioner from 28.7.1989 to 12.6.1996 is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of pensionary benefits together with full regular service of the petitioner w.e.f. 12.6.1996 to 24.6.2004 for the purpose of pensionary benefits. In these circumstances, the petition is allowed. The respondent- Board is directed to count half of the daily wage service of the petitioner rendered by him in the respondent- Board from 6.7.1989 to 12.6.1996 and thereafter full service from 12.6.1996 to 24.6.2004 for purpose of pension etc. of petitioner. The release of pension shall abide by the outcome of Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 362 of 2008 pending in the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The petition stands disposed of CMP(T) 542 of 2009. 5. Infructuous in view of the disposal of the main case. June 4, 2010. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.