IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8134 of 2010 a/w CWP Nos. 8143, 8144, 8145, 8146, 8147, 8148, 8150, 8151, 8152, 8153, 8154, 8155, 8156, 8159 & 8199 of 2010 Date of decision: 28.12.2010. 1. CWP No. 8134 of 2010 Sant Ram Versus State of H.P. and ors. 2. CWP No. 8143 of 2010 Birbal Versus State of H.P. and ors. 3. CWP No. 8144 of 2010 Kishori Lal Versus State of H.P. and ors. 4. CWP No. 8145 of 2010 Jagat Ram Versus State of H.P. and ors. 5. CWP No. 8146 of 2010 Ami Chand Versus State of H.P. and ors. 6. CWP No. 8147 of 2010 Chain Singh Versus State of H.P. and ors. 7. CWP No. 8148 of 2010 Mangat Ram Versus State of H.P. and ors. 8. CWP No. 8150 of 2010 Dalip Singh Versus State of H.P. and ors. 9. CWP No. 8151 of 2010 Jonda Ram Versus State of H.P. and ors. 10. CWP No. 8152 of 2010 Amar Singh Versus State of H.P. and ors. - 2 - 11. CWP No. 8153 of 2010 Jaisi Ram Versus State of H.P. and ors. 12 CWP No. 8154 of 2010 Jagar Nath Versus State of H.P. and ors. 13. CWP No. 8155 of 2010 Kirlu Ram Versus State of H.P. and ors. 14. CWP No. 8156 of 2010 Jamila Biwi Versus State of H.P. and ors. 15. CWP No. 8159 of 2010 Filtha Ram Versus State of H.P. and ors. 16. CWP No. 8199 of 2010 Ishro Ram Versus State of H.P. and anr. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the Petitioner (s) : M/s. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, L.N.Sharma and Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. A.G. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) 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. 2. We are informed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the issue is covered in favour of the petitioners by the decision of - 3 - 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 parties agree that they will also be bound by 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 petitioners 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 Datyal’s case would apply to the petitioners. Dasti copy. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice (Justice V.K. Ahuja), December 28, 2010 Judge (tilak/pankaj)