IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.1193/2008 with CWPs No.1194, 1195, 1199, 1206 and 2221 of 2008. Decided on: 22nd March, 2010. (For title, please see below). Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. For the petitioner : (See below). For the Respondents : --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) 1. CWP No.1193 of 2008. State of H.P. and others. Petitioners. Versus Mahant Ram. Respondent. For the Petitioners: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr.Addl. Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, DAG. For the Respondent: Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. 2. CWP No.1194 of 2008. State of H.P. and others. Petitioners. Versus Damodar Dass. Respondent. For the Petitioners: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr.Addl. Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, DAG. For the Respondent: Nemo. 3. CWP No.1195 of 2008. State of H.P. and others. Petitioners. Versus Dhani Ram. Respondent. For the Petitioners: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr.Addl. Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, DAG. For the Respondent: Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. 4. CWP No.1199 of 2008. State of H.P. and others. Petitioners. Versus Ganga Ram. Respondent. For the Petitioners: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr.Addl. Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, DAG. For the Respondent: Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. 5. CWP No.1206 of 2008. State of H.P. and others. Petitioners. Versus Bhikham Singh (now decease through his LRs Prem Singh & others. Respondents. For the Petitioners: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr.Addl. Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, DAG. For the Respondents: Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Advocate. 6. CWP No.2221 of 2008. State of H.P. and others. Petitioners. Versus Roshan Lal. Respondent. For the Petitioners: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr.Addl. Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, DAG. For the Respondent: Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. The issue raised in these writ petitions pertains to the question whether 50% of the daily waged service is liable to be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits. We are informed that the issue is covered in favour of the workers 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. It is pointed out that the matter is pending before the Apex Court. The parties agree that they will also be bound by the outcome of the decision, now pending before the Apex Court, so that these cases also need not be taken to the Apex Court. Therefore, these writ petitions are 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 applicants 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 cases and, therefore, it will be certainly open to the Authority concerned to examine whether on facts Sarab Datyal’s case would apply to the applicants. Dasti copy. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 22nd March , 2010 ( Justice R.B. Misra ), (tr) Judge.