IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11252 of 2011 Sanjay Kumar Mishra SON OF SHRI SHIV SHANKAR MISHRA RESIDENT OF MOHALLA MAUNA ALOO BAZAR CHAPRA, P.S. CHAPRA TOWN, DISTRICT SARAN. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. THE COMMISSIONER, SARAN DIVISION AT CHAPRA. 3. THE COLLECTOR, SARN AT CHAPRA. 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SADAR CHAPRA, DISTRICT SARAN. 5. THE SUB-DIVISIOINAL CERTIFICATE OFFICER, CHAPRA DISTRICT SARAN. 6. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, INCHARGE ESTABLISHMENT, CHAPRA DISTRICT SARAN. ---------------------------------- 2 16/09/2011 Repeated visit by the petitioner before the High Court may not solve his problem or beget him kind of relief which he is looking for. Earlier effort was to get foot hold in the organization under the State government as a regular government employee on the basis of him having worked in the S.D.O. office, Saran at Chapra but that claim was also given up in he last writ application which came to be filed by him when a finding was recorded by three men committee and he confined his prayer to direction upon the respondents to consider his claim for payment for the period he has worked as a daily wager. - 2 - The District Magistrate, Saran by virtue of annexure-1 has passed a speaking order. This order has been passed not only in light of annexure-7 directives but after hearing the parties to the dispute including the petitioner. Finding is that there is no evidence as such which will support the claim of the petitioner that he was employed/engaged by any competent authority to work as a daily wager in the office of the Sub-divisional Magistrate which he is claiming. Finding is that may be a petty Clerk had outsourced his work and responsibility and for which directives have been issued by the District Magistrate to initiate action but that act of the Clerk will not bind the government and the government has no obligation to pay anything to the petitioner. Outsourcing of work may be a good business venture but outsourcing of the kind which was done from the office of the Sub-divisional Officer in official work, has no legal recognition which will beget him any remuneration from the State government. Petitioner may take whatever steps he wants to take against the person - 3 - who gave him an impression that he was working for the State and not for that individual. The finding being what it is, no direction is required to be given for payment which the petitioner is looking for between the year 1994 till 2010, for the so called period of work rendered by him. This writ application is dismissed being devoid of merit. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)