IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.W.P. 2167/2007 along with CWP Nos. 2307, 2211, 2168, 2210, 2317, 2318, 2209, 2212, 2294, 2220, 2319, 2165, 2172, 2170, 2169 and 2166 of 2007 and CWP Nos. 266, 62, 345, 344, 1183, 269, 508, 856, 351, 267 and 268 of 2008. Decided on 16.3.2010 CWP No. 2167 of 2007. HPSEB & Others ...Petitioner Versus Bali Ram …Respondent CWP No. 2166 of 2007. HPSEB & Anr. ...Petitioner Versus Savitri Devi and Anr. …Respondent CWP No. 2169 of 2007. HPSEB ...Petitioner Versus Ravi Prakash …Respondent CWP No. 2170 of 2007. HPSEB & Anr. ...Petitioner Versus Pritam Singh. …Respondent CWP No. 2172 of 2007. HPSEB & Others ...Petitioner Versus Chet Ram …Respondent CWP No. 2165 of 2007. HPSEB & Anr ...Petitioner Versus Mohan Lal …Respondent CWP No. 2319 of 2007. HPSEB & Others ...Petitioner Versus Pratap Chand and Anr. …Respondent CWP No. 2220 of 2007. HPSEB ...Petitioner Versus Sawaran Dass …Respondent CWP No. 2294 of 2007. HPSEB & Anr. ...Petitioner Versus Bihari Lal and Anr. …Respondent CWP No. 2212 of 2007. HPSEB & Others ...Petitioner Versus Budh Ram …Respondent CWP No. 2209 of 2007. HPSEB & Anr. ...Petitioner Versus Tota Ram …Respondent CWP No. 2318 of 2007. HPSEB & Anr. ...Petitioner Versus Piar Chand & Anr. …Respondent CWP No. 2317 of 2007. The Secretary HPSEB & Others ...Petitioner Versus Tek Singh. …Respondent CWP No. 2210 of 2007. HPSEB & Anr. ...Petitioner Versus Janak Raj. …Respondent CWP No. 2168 of 2007. HPSEB & Anr. ...Petitioner Versus Sant Ram …Respondent CWP No. 2307 of 2007. State of H.P. & Others ...Petitioner Versus Hans Raj. …Respondent CWP No. 2211 of 2007. HPSEB & Others ...Petitioner Versus Mallu Ram. …Respondent CWP No. 266 of 2008. HPSEB & Anr. ...Petitioner Versus Krishanu Ram …Respondent CWP No. 62 of 2008. HPSEB & Anr. ...Petitioner Versus Smt. Ram Dei …Respondent CWP No. 345 of 2008. HPSEB & others ...Petitioner Versus Kirpa Ram …Respondent CWP No. 344 of 2008. HPSEB & Anr. ...Petitioner Versus Hira Singh …Respondent CWP No. 1183 of 2008. HPSEB & Anr. ...Petitioner Versus Budhi Singh …Respondent CWP No. 269 of 2008. HPSEB & Anr. ...Petitioner Versus Krishanu Ram …Respondent CWP No. 508 of 2008. HPSEB ...Petitioner Versus Marchu Ram …Respondent CWP No. 856 of 2008. HPSEB & Anr. ...Petitioner Versus Mohan Lal …Respondent CWP No. 351 of 2008. HPSEB & Anr. ...Petitioner Versus Gulwant Singh …Respondent CWP No. 267 of 2008. HPSEB & Anr. ...Petitioner Versus Gopal Dass …Respondent CWP No. 268 of 2008. HPSEB ...Petitioner Versus Sharif Mohd. …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate for the respective petitioners and Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr J.K. Verma, Dy AG for petitioner in CWP No. 2307 of 2007. M/S Ramakant Sharma, P.P. Chauhan, Vikas Rathore, N.K. Bhardwaj, N.K. Thakur, Ashok Sharma, Narender Sharma, Shashi Bhushan, R.S. Gautam, Dharamvir Sharma, A.K. Gupta, Ms. Sunita Sharma, Anil Sharma, Rajiv Jiwan, Ms. Sunita Soni, Neel Kamal Sharma, D.P. Chauhan and Jeevesh Sharma, for the respective respondents. ___________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Issue raised in this petition 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 & ors Versus Sarab Dayal in CWP No. 180 of 2001 decided on 19.7.2007. It is pointed out that the matter is pending before 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 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. Copy Dasti. ( Justice Kurian Joseph ), Chief Justice March 16, 2010 (k/p) ( Justice R.B. Misra ), Judge