Kirti Azad v. The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s For the Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN Mr. Mahtab Alam, Advocate Mr. Standing Counsel (16) : : 2 31-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ORAL ORDER counsel for the State.

The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief/s:-

I. For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to mark his attendance as Computer Operator in the office of Junior Engineer (MANREGA), Mainatad Block. West Champaran as petitioner arbitrarily and illegally denied to mark his attendance even he has been regularly approaching the authorities. Patna High Court CWJC No.4817 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026 II. For issuance of an appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents authorities to make payment of salaries for the period petitioner has been illegally denied to mark attendance as well as for the period work done by the petitioner current as well as arrears which has been illegally withheld. III. For any other relief or relief for which petitioner is entitled in the opinion of this Hon'ble High Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was a daily wager, but, after filing of criminal case against him along with others, he was not allowed to attend the office and he involved in pursuing for bail. Counsel submits that no coercive was granted to the petitioner, thereafter, he went to the office to resume his duty, but the respondents did not permitted him to resume his duty. In this regard, the petitioner has filed representation dated 09.01.2026 before the District Magistrate, West Champaran at Bettiah (annexed as Annexure- P/4), but no decision has been taken as yet.

Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner himself admits that he is a daily wager. Counsel submits that the daily wager has no right as like that of regular employee according to service jurisprudence. He submits that Patna High Court CWJC No.4817 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026 the petitioner can avail the remedy before the appropriate forum.

After hearing the parties, this Court put a specific question to the counsel for the petitioner regarding the source of his employment that whether he has been appointed by the authorities or by the outsourcing agency. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the statement of the FIR indicates that he was appointed by the authorities.

This Court is of the view that the petitioner is a daily wager, and in light of his claim that he has worked for more than ten years and has been falsely implicated in a case, the appropriate remedy available to him lies under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, now Industrial Relations Code, 2020.