IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1068 of 2009 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar,Vikash Bhawan, Patna 3. The Deputy Director of Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar,Vikas Bhawan, Patna 4. District Education Officer, East Champaran, Motihari 5. Block Education Extension Officer, Harsidhi(i) East Champaran 6. Principal, Zila School, Motrihari, District East Champaran … … Aappellants Versus MUNDRIKA RAUT son of late Bhajan Raut, resident of Village Lachnauta Mishra Tola, Police Station Lauria, District West Champaran at present peon, working in the office of the Block Education Extension Officer, Harsidhi(i) East Chapmparan, Motihari … … Respondent ----------- 7. 9.2.2011 After having heard learned counsel for the parties and after having considered the ground mentioned in the interlocutory application No. 5963 of 2009, we condone the delay in filing the appeal by allowing it. This letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 28.1.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C.No. 7761 of 2002. After having heard learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent, we are satisfied that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to pay to the writ petitioner the wages for the period he had 2 worked on account of being employed on daily wages needs no interference. The facts were properly noticed along with the fact that the writ petitioner had come before this Court through C.W.J.C. No. 9893 of 2000 seeking the same relief which he was seeking in C.W.J.C. No. 7761 of 2002 as also the fact that his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange for inducting him as a daily wage earner. His services were regularized by the Establishment Committee from 9.11.1989 and thereafter his enrolment was found not properly made on account of some circulars which were annexed to the main writ petition. Initially, the petitioner‟s name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange and he was duly inducted. There might be some illegality in the same but the appointment was made by some Officers duly authorized to do it. This was the reason that the learned Single Judge was observing as follows: “ The respondents in their counter affidavit in reply to the pleadings in paragraph-3 of the writ petition have stated that the same are „matters of record‟ but that the appointment was in violation of certain administrative 3 reforms department circular dated 3.12.80. Clause-6 of the very same circular talks of appointment of grade- IV to be made through the Employment Exchange. If the appoint was through the process of the employment exchange, that his name did not figure in any panel, does not impress the Court.” What we find is that in spite of appreciating the spirit of the order and the observations extracted above the State was filing this heartless litigation against the present appellant who appears deeply exploited and thereafter was made to run from pillar to post to raise his grievance. This present appeal appears of no merit. We, accordingly, dismiss it. Kanth ( T. Meena Kumari, J.) ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)