IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 61 of 2008 with CWPs No. 109, 296, 867, 882,883, 1076, 1460, 2848 of 2008 and 544 & 911 of 2009. Decided on: March 18, 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. 61 of 2008 H.P.State Electricity Board and another ….Petitioners. Versus Chhaju Ram ……. Respondent. For the Petitioners Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate For the respondent Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate. 2. CWP No. 109 of 2008 State of H.P. and another ….Petitioners. Versus Dassu Ram ……. Respondent. For the Petitioners Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General 2 For the respondent Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate. 3. CWP No. 296 of 2008 H.P.State Electricity Board and others ….Petitioners. versus Yan Chand ……. Respondent. For the Petitioners Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate For the respondent Nemo.. 4. CWP No. 867 of 2008 State of H.P. and another ….Petitioners. versus Lobhu Ram ……. Respondent. For the Petitioners Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate. 5.. CWP No.882 of 2008 State of H.P. and others ….Petitioners. versus Jeet Ram ……. Respondent. For the Petitioners Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General For the respondent Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate. 6. CWP No. 883 of 2008 State of H.P. and others ….Petitioners. versus Sher Singh ……. Respondent. For the Petitioners Mr.R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General For the respondent Nemo. 3 7. CWP No. 1076 of 2008 H.P.State Electricity Board and another ….Petitioners. versus Rattan Chand ……. Respondent. For the Petitioners Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate For the respondent Mr. R.K. Shoa, Advocate. 8. CWP No. 1460 of 2008 H.P.State Electricity Board and another ….Petitioners. versus Ram Singh ……. Respondent. For the Petitioners Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate For the respondent Mr. B.S. Chauhan, Advocate. 9. CWP No.2848 of 2008 State of H.P. and another ….Petitioners. versus Asha Ram ……. Respondent. For the Petitioners Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. 10. CWP No. 544 of 2009 Charan Singh ….Petitioner. versus State of H.P. and others ……. Respondents. For the Petitioner Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, Advocate For the respondents Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General 4 11. CWP No. 911 of 2008 H.P.State Electricity Board ….Petitioner versus Lek Ram ……. Respondent. For the Petitioner Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate For the respondent Nemo. 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 and others vs. Sarab Dayal in CWP No. 180 of 2001 decided on 19th July, 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 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 5 certainly open to the Authority concerned to examine whether on facts Sarab Dayal’s case would apply to the applicants. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice March 18, 2010 (Justice R.B. Misra), (rks) Judge.