Patna High Court
Kirti AzadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The petition is dismissed; the petitioner must seek remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (now the Industrial Relations Code, 2020).
Summary
Kirti Azad, a daily‑wage computer operator in the MANREGA office of Mainatand Block, West Champaran, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the authorities to allow him to mark his attendance and to pay his salary after he was barred from work following a criminal case. He claimed he had been regularly approaching the authorities and had filed a representation before the District Magistrate, which remained pending. The State argued that a daily‑wage worker does not enjoy the same service rights as a regular employee and that any remedy must be sought in the appropriate forum. The Court examined whether the petitioner was appointed directly by the authorities or through an outsourcing agency and concluded that, irrespective of the source, his status as a daily wager places his grievance under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (now the Industrial Relations Code, 2020). Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue his claim before the appropriate industrial dispute forum.
Issues considered
- What relief, if any, is available to a daily‑wage worker denied attendance and salary under writ jurisdiction?
- Whether the petitioner, as a daily‑wage employee, is entitled to the same service‑related rights as a regular government employee.
- Whether the appropriate remedy lies under the Industrial Disputes Act/Industrial Relations Code rather than a writ petition.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- daily wage worker
- attendance denial
- salary payment
- mandamus
- industrial disputes
- Industrial Relations Code 2020
- service rights
- MANREGA
- writ jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4817 of 2026
======================================================
Kirti Azad Son of Arbind Prasad Sinha, Resident of Village- Belwa Tola, P.O.
and P.S.- Mainatand, District- West Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Development Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, West Champaran at Bettiah.
4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, West Champaran.
5. The District Programme Officer (MANREGA), District Rural Development
Agency, West Champaran, Bettiah.
6. The Junior Engineer (MANREGA), Mainatand Block, West Champaran.
7. The Block Programme Officer (MANREGA), Rural Development Agency,
Mainatand Block, West Champaran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mahtab Alam, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel (16)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
2 31-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. 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
2/3
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.”
3. 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.
4. 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
3/3
the petitioner can avail the remedy before the appropriate forum.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. As such, this writ petition stands disposed off with
liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy with regard to his
service related matter before the appropriate forum under
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 now Industrial Relations Code,
2020.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
U
Checking your session…