IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.237 of 2008 with CWPs No.187, 199, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 239, 242, 243, 244, 272, 829 of 2008; 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 27, 28,153, 157, 445, 447, 448 and 4470 of 2009. Decided on: May 27, 2010 [ For title : Please see below ] Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the Petitioners : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. For the Respondent: M/s GR Palsara, AK Gupta, RD Kaundal, BS Thakur, Ajay Sharma & Virender Verma, Advocates for the respondent in CWPs No. 187, 206, 225, 244 of 2008 and 157 & 4470 of 2009. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) CWP No. 237 of 2008 State of H.P. and another …..Petitioners Versus 1. Mehar Singh … Respondent. CWP No. 187 of 2008 Secretary, IPH and another …..Petitioners Versus 2. Beer Singh … Respondent. 2 CWP No. 199 of 2008 State of H.P. and others …..Petitioners Versus 3. Prem Chand … Respondent. CWP No. 204 of 2008 State of H.P. and another …..Petitioners Versus 4. Punnu Ram … Respondent. CWP No. 205 of 2008 State of H.P. and others …..Petitioners Versus 5. Duni Chand … Respondent. CWP No. 206 of 2008 State of H.P. and another …..Petitioners Versus 6. Tarsem Singh … Respondent. CWP No. 237 of 2008 State of H.P. and another …..Petitioners Versus 7. Mehar Singh … Respondent. CWP No. 207 of 2008 State of H.P. and another …..Petitioners Versus 8. Parkash Chand … Respondent. CWP No. 208 of 2008 9. State of H.P. and others …..Petitioners 3 Versus Munshi Ram … Respondent. CWP No. 209 of 2008 State of H.P. and others …..Petitioners Versus 10. Amar Singh … Respondent. CWP No. 210 of 2008 State of H.P. and others …..Petitioners Versus 11. Suram Singh and another … Respondent. CWP No. 220 of 2008 State of H.P. and others …..Petitioners Versus 12. Sansar Chand … Respondent. CWP No. 221 of 2008 State of H.P. and another …..Petitioners Versus 13. Julfi Ram … Respondent. CWP No. 222 of 2008 State of H.P. and others …..Petitioners Versus 14. Raja Ram … Respondent. CWP No. 223 of 2008 State of H.P. and others …..Petitioners Versus 15. Onkar Singh … Respondent. 4 CWP No. 224 of 2008 State of H.P. and another …..Petitioners Versus 16. Rattan Chand … Respondent. CWP No. 225 of 2008 State of H.P. and others …..Petitioners Versus 17. Bal Krishan … Respondent. CWP No. 226 of 2008 State of H.P. and another …..Petitioners Versus 18. Dev Raj … Respondent. CWP No. 239 of 2008 State of H.P. and another …..Petitioners Versus 19. Karam Chand … Respondent. CWP No. 242 of 2008 State of H.P. and others …..Petitioners Versus 20. Ram Saran … Respondent. CWP No. 243 of 2008 State of H.P. and another …..Petitioners Versus 21. Dev Raj … Respondent. CWP No. 244 of 2008 22. State of H.P. and another …..Petitioners 5 Versus Onkar Singh … Respondent. CWP No. 272 of 2008 State of H.P. and others …..Petitioners Versus 23. Jarmo Ram … Respondent. CWP No. 829 of 2008 State of H.P. and another …..Petitioners Versus 24. Sher Singh … Respondent. CWP No. 7 of 2009 State of H.P. and another …..Petitioners Versus 25. Janam Singh … Respondent. CWP No. 8 of 2009 State of H.P. and another …..Petitioners Versus 26. Machala Ram Janam Singh … Respondent. CWP No. 9 of 2009 State of H.P. and another …..Petitioners Versus 27. Roshan Lal … Respondent. CWP No. 10 of 2009 State of H.P. and another …..Petitioners Versus 28. Budhi Singh … Respondent. 6 CWP No. 11 of 2009 State of H.P. and others …..Petitioners Versus 29. Punjab Singh … Respondent. CWP No. 12 of 2009 State of H.P. and another …..Petitioners Versus 30. Chando Ram … Respondent. CWP No. 27 of 2009 State of H.P. and others …..Petitioners Versus 31. Lalo Ram … Respondent. CWP No. 28 of 2009 State of H.P. and others …..Petitioners Versus 32. Chuni Lal … Respondent. CWP No. 153 of 2009 State of H.P. and another …..Petitioners Versus 33. Sita Ram … Respondent. CWP No. 157 of 2009 State of H.P. and another …..Petitioners Versus 34. Lajje Ram … Respondent. CWP No. 445 of 2009 35. State of H.P. and others …..Petitioners 7 Versus Prem Chand … Respondent. CWP No. 447 of 2009 State of H.P. and others …..Petitioners Versus 36. Amar Nath … Respondent. CWP No. 448 of 2009 State of H.P. and others …..Petitioners Versus 37. Pathanu Ram … Respondent. CWP No. 4470 of 2009 State of H.P. and others …..Petitioners Versus 38. Rasila Ram … Respondent. 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. 2. We are informed that the issue is covered in favour of the workers by the decision of this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Sarab Dayal in CWP No. 180 of 2001 decided on 19th July, 2007. 3. It is pointed out that the matter is pending before the Apex Court. The parties agree that they will also be bound by the out come of the decision, now pending before the Apex Court, so that 8 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 Dayal’s case would apply to the applicants. 4. These Writ Petitions are disposed of. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice May 27, 2010 (Justice Sanjay Karol), (rks) Judge.