IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.609 of 2011 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 10600/2010) 1. MD. MABHOOR ALAM, S/O MD. YUNUS R/O VILLAGE MASORIA, P.S. MAHALGAON, DISTRICT- ARARIA ------Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DIRECTOR IN CHIEF, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE SECRETARY, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STATE HEALTH SOCIETY, BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HEALTH DEPARTMENT SERVICES PURNEA DIVISION, PURNEA, DISTRICT- PURNEA. 6. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT HEALTH SOCIETY, ARARIA, DISTRICT- ARARIA. 7. THE CIVIL SURGEON CUM MEMBER SECRETARY, DISTRICT HEALTH SOCIETY, ARARIA, DISTRICT- ARARIA. 8. THE INCHARGE MEDICAL OFFICER CUM MEMBER SECRETARY, ROGI KALAYAN SAMITTI REFERAL HOSPITAL, JOKIHAT, DISTRICT- ARARIA . -------Respondents -------------------------- 4 13-09-2011 Heard the parties. The appellant entered into contractual service with the District Health Society, Araria. The concerned authorities of the Society did not extend his contract of service nor relieved him for a long period as alleged by the appellant/ writ petitioner. The writ court considered the nature of engagement and finding the same to be contractual declined to give any direction for continuation or renewal of the contract but observed that, if so advised, 2 the petitioner may move the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the counter affidavit shows that for misdeeds of some other officials, the contract of service of the appellant was not renewed. Realizing the significance of observations of the writ court and the limitations on account of service being purely contractual, learned counsel has confined his prayer that the District Health Society, Araria should be directed to examine the claim of the appellant for payment of due wages for the period he was not relieved and was made to work without renewal of contract of service. We direct the concerned authorities to examine and dispose of the aforesaid grievance of the appellant within a period of three months from filing of a representation along with a copy of this order. If the authorities find that the work was taken from the appellant without proper authority, they should indicate in their reply as to who was responsible for taking work from the appellant without the authority from the 3 Society. Thereafter, if so advised, the appellant may sue that person for damages etc. before the civil court. The appeal is disposed of. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J.)