IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.9561 of 2008 with CWPs(T) No. 13820, 14087, 14088, 14659, 15195, 15555, 15582, 15667, 15687, 15689, 15690, 15691, 15692, 15693, 15694, 15695, 15696, 15698, 15714, 15901, 15939, 16002, 16020, 16034, 16042, 16054, 16066, 16113, 16115, 16121, 16122, 16130, 16131, 16132, 16134, 16135, 16231, 16232, 16233, 16234, 16235, 16236, 16237 and 16251 of 2010. 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 Petitioner : For the Respondents: Please see below. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) CWP (T) No. 9561 of 2008 Mansa Ram …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ..Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate 1. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Ashok Thakur, Central Government Counsel for respondent No.3. CWP (T) No. 13820 of 2008 Famshu Ram …..Petitioner 2. Versus 2 H.P.S.E.B. and another ..Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Vashistha,Advocate For the Respondents: Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate. CWP (T) No. 14087 of 2008 Jindju Ram …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ..Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Vashistha, Advocate 3. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. CWP (T) No. 14088 of 2008 Durga Ram …..Petitioner Versus H.P.S.E.B and another ..Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate 4. For the Respondents: Mrs. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate CWP (T) No. 14659 of 2008 Dumnu Ram …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ..Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. Lovnesh Kumar, Advocate 5. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General CWP (T) No. 15195 of 2008 Joginder Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ..Respondents. 6. For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate 3 For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General CWP (T) No. 15555 of 2008 Tek Chand …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ..Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate 7. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General for respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate for respondent No.3. CWP (T) No. 15582 of 2008 Mansha Ram …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ..Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. Pritam Singh Chandel, Advocate 8. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General CWP (T) No. 15667 of 2008 Ram Dass …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ..Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate 9. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Ashok Thakur, CGC for respondent No.4 CWP (T) No. 15687 of 2008 Santu Ram …..Petitioner 10. Versus 4 State of H.P. and others …...Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. Lokender Pal Thakur, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. CWP (T) No. 15689 of 2008 Shiv Ram …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ..Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. Lokender Paul Thakur, Advocate 11. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. CWP (T) No. 15690 of 2008 Ganga Ram …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ..Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. Lokender Paul Thakur, Advocate 12. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. CWP (T) No. 15691 of 2008 Nikka Ram …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ..Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. Lokender Paul Thakur, Advocate 13. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. CWP (T) No. 15692 of 2008 Bishamber Ram …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ..Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. Lokender Paul Thakur, Advocate 14. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. 5 CWP (T) No. 15693 of 2008 Nikku Ram …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ..Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. Lokender Paul Thakur, Advocate 15. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. CWP (T) No. 15694 of 2008 Nathu Ram …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ..Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. Lokender Paul Thakur, Advocate 16. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. CWP (T) No. 15695 of 2008 Dhani Ram …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ..Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. Lokender Paul Thakur, Advocate 17. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. CWP (T) No. 15696 of 2008 Lachhu Ram …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ..Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. Lokender Paul Thakur, Advocate 18. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. CWP (T) No. 15698 of 2008 Santu Ram …..Petitioner 19. Versus 6 State of H.P. and others ..Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. Lokender Paul Thakur, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. CWP (T) No. 15714 of 2008 Munshi Ram …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ..Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate 20. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. CWP (T) No. 15901 of 2008 Sabla Ram …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ..Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate 21. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. CWP (T) No. 15939 of 2008 Bajiru Ram …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ..Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma & Ramakant Sharma, Advocates 22. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3 Ms. Sharmila Patial, Advocate vice Mr. K.S. Rathore, CGC for respondent No.4. CWP (T) No. 16002 of 2008 Roshan Lal …..Petitioner Versus 23. State of H.P. and others ..Respondents. 7 For the Petitioner : Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. CWP (T) No. 16020 of 2008 Mangu Ram …..Petitioner Versus H.P.S.E.B and another ..Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate 24. For the Respondents: Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate CWP (T) No. 16034 of 2008 Sharwan Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ..Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate 25. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General for respondents No. 1 & 2 Mr. Ashok Thakur, CGC for respondent No.3. CWP (T) No. 16042 of 2008 Sunder Dass …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ..Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. Naresh Kumar Kaul, Advocate 26. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. CWP (T) No. 16054 of 2008 Mani Lal …..Petitioner Versus H.P.S.E. B and others ..Respondents. 27. For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma & Ramakant Sharma, Advocates 8 For the Respondents: Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate for respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr. Ashok Thakur, CGC for respondent No.3. CWP (T) No. 16066 of 2008 Roop Ram …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ..Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocates 28. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General for respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr. Ashok Thakur, CGC for respondent No.3. CWP (T) No. 16113 of 2008 Babu Ram …..Petitioner Versus H.P.S.E.B. and others ..Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. Devinder Chauhan Jaita, Advocate 29. For the Respondents: Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate CWP (T) No. 16115 of 2008 Mulkh Raj …..Petitioner Versus H.P.S.E.B. and another ..Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Gupta,Advocate 30. For the Respondents: Mrs. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate. CWP (T) No. 16121 of 2008 Nihaloo Ram …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ..Respondents. 31. For the Petitioner : Mr. Lokender Paul Thakur, Advocate 9 For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. CWP (T) No. 16122 of 2008 Basanta Ram …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ..Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. Lokender Paul Thakur, Advocate 32. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. CWP (T) No. 16130 of 2008 Garib Dass …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ..Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate 33. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. CWP (T) No. 16131 of 2008 Gian Chand …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ..Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate 34. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. CWP (T) No. 16132 of 2008 Chandu Ram …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ..Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate 35. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. 10 CWP (T) No. 16134 of 2008 Gujjar Ram …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ..Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate 36. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. CWP (T) No. 16135 of 2008 Sarwan Ram …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ..Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate 37. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. CWP (T) No. 16231 of 2008 Brij Lal …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ..Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Kanwar, Advocate 38. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Ashok Thakur, CGC for respondent No.4. CWP (T) No. 16232 of 2008 Dharam Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ..Respondents. 39. For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Kanwar, Advocate 11 For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 2. Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. Ashok Thakur, CGC for respondent No.4. CWP (T) No. 16233 of 2008 Prithi Chand …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ..Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Kanwar, Advocate 40. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. Ashok Thakur, CGC for respondent No.5. CWP (T) No. 16234 of 2008 Surinder Kumar Dogra …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ..Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Kanwar, Advocate 41. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Ashok Thakur, CGC for respondent No.4. CWP (T) No. 16235 of 2008 Sarwan Ram …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ..Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Kanwar, Advocate 42. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. Ashok Thakur, CGC for 12 respondent No.5. CWP (T) No. 16236 of 2008 Kanshi Ram …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ..Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Kanwar, Advocate 43. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Ashok Thakur, CGC for respondent No.4. CWP (T) No. 16237 of 2008 Rattan Chand …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ..Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Kanwar, Advocate 44. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. Ashok Thakur, CGC for respondent No.5. CWP (T) No. 16251 of 2008 Hukam Chand …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ..Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Advocate 45. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General 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. 13 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 these cases also need not be taken to the Apex Court. 4. 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. Dasti copy on usual terms. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice May 27, 2010 (Justice Sanjay Karol), (rks) Judge.