IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10149 of 2005 Rajendra, Son of Shri Karu Choudhary, Resident of Village Rajapur Indaul, Police Station Akbarpur, District Nawada, present C/o Ashok Choudhary, Resident of Mohalla Barah Pathar, Mohanpur Road, Samastipur Ward No.11, Police Station Samastipur, District Samastipur. -------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through District Magistrate, Samastipur. 2. The District Magistrate, Samastipur. 3. The Additional District Magistrate, Incharge General Section Samastipur Collectoriate, Samastipur. 4. The Nazarat Deputy Collector (Establishment) Samastipur Collectoriate, Samastipur. 5. The Deputy Collector, General Section, Samastipur Collectoriate, Samastipur. -------- Respondents ----------- 3 4.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1(I) For issuance of a writ in the mandamus commanding the respondents No.2 for release and make payment of arrear of salary from 1.7.2002 to 10.9.2004 (annexure-6) which is admitted dues of the petitioner working as daily wages on valid command and order of Respondent No.2 and in view of Respondent No.2 order contained in Annexure-7. (II) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to consider the petitioner, who is working since last more than seven hundred days continuously as Daily Wager doing typing works like a 2 regular typing clerk in different department with a satisfactory works under respondent No.2 in Collectoriate of Samastipur regularized in regular cadre. (III) Petitioner further prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash Memo No.546 dated 18 September, 2004 issued under the signature of respondent No.5 by which petitioner appointment was terminated from the evening of 10.9.2005. (IV) Petitioner further prays for grant of interest as per Saving Bank rate be also given on the admitted dues of the petitioner till the date of payment.” Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset has submitted that he will not press either for regularization of service or for setting aside order of termination, inasmuch as, the petitioner could legitimately claim no right to continue in Government service as he was never appointed in the Collectorate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has pressed only the first relief, namely, payment of salary for the period his services were utilized on deputation in the Government for doling election work and for which at one point of time even the Additional Collector of 3 Samastipur district had requested the Nazarat Deputy Collectorate, Samstipur vide his letter dated 12th March, 2005 to pay the salary of the petitioner for the period 1.7.2002 to 10.9.2004 in the prescribed daily wages as per Government rate. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein a plea has been taken that the petitioner was working in a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO), namely, District Blindness Control Society and in fact his services were utilized in the Collectorate during the election only by borrowing his services from the said Society. The respondents in fact have also enclosed a letter of the Civil Surgeon, Samastipur showing the petitioner to have been paid his honorarium in the said Society for the period July, 2000 to August, 2005, which according to the respondents would also cover the period in question i.e. 1.7.2002 to 10.9.2004. Learned counsel for the State, therefore, would submit that the petitioner cannot raise such claim for payment from two places, inasmuch as, he has already been paid his full salary for the concerned period by the District Blindness 4 Control Society. There is no rejoinder to the said counter affidavit nor the petitioner had disclosed this fact that he had been paid his honorarium for the period, in question, by the District Blindness Control Society. There is also nothing on record to show as to what were the terms and conditions for payment of his salary during period of his deputation in the collectorate. An impression created by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was supposed to work at both the places and thus entitled for payment from both the places is a question of fact. That being so, this Court would give liberty to the petitioner to approach the Collector of the Samastipur district, who now would go into the question only for the purposes of deciding the admissibility of payment of salary to the petitioner as per prescribed rate of daily wages fixed by the Government for the period 1.7.2002 to 10.9.2004 after taking into account the aforesaid earlier letter of the Additional Collector dated 12.3.2005. The Collector of the district, however, would also make an 5 enquiry and if he finds that the petitioner is entitled for payment of salary for the aforesaid period in the prescribed Government rate of Daily Wagers, he would direct for making such payment of salary for the aforesaid period after deducting the amount of honorarium as per the terms and conditions of service of the petitioner and similarly situated other persons. Let it be made clear that this Court has expressed no final opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner and it has only given liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation to the Collector, who is expected to decide the issue in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of filing of such representation by the petitioner. With the aforesaid observations and directions this writ application is finally disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)