IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 153 of 2008 Date of Decision: 24th February, 2011 Shakuntla Devi Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner: Mr. T.C.Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. R.M.Bisht, Dy. Advocate General Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) According to the learned counsel for the parties, the issued raised in this petition is covered in favour of the worker by the decision of this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Sarab Dayal, in CWP No.180 of 2001, decided on 19.7.2007. The Division Bench of this Court in such like matters, copy of one of such orders passed in Raghu Ram vs. State of H.P. and another, CWP (T) No. 1891 of 2008, decided on 22.2.2011 is taken on record, has passed the following order:- “The issue raised in this writ petition pertains to the question whether 50% of the Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 daily waged service is liable to be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits. 2. I am informed that the issue is covered in favour of worker by the decision of this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh & others vs. Sarab Dayal, in CWP No.180 of 2001, decided on 19.7.2007. 3. It is pointed out that the matter is pending before the Apex Court. The petitioner is agree that she will also be bound the outcome of the decision, now pending before the Apex Court, so that the case also need not be taken to the Apex Court. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of, making it clear that in case the decision of this Court is implemented in the case of the similarly situated persons, in the case of the applicant herein also, the judgment will be implemented expeditiously subject to the result of the matter pending before the Apex court. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the case and, therefore, it will be certainly open to the Authority concerned to examine whether on facts Sarab Dayal’s case would apply to the applicant” 2. The directions issued in Sarab Dayal and Raghu Ram (supra) thus shall mutatis mutandis apply to the instant case also. The petition is disposed of. Dasti copy 24th February, 2011 (Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge.