08/ 28th April 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.19 of 2011 HARENDRA KUMAR SINHA S/O SIDHESHWAR SINHA R/O MOHALLA-KARMA ROAD, SARVODAY NAGAR, POST OFFICE, PS. AND DISTRICT- AURANGABAD (BIHAR)…………………….PETITIONER/APPELLANT Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THRU ITS SECRETARY, LAW DEPARTMENT TO THE GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 2. THE SECRETARY-CUM-COMMISSIONER, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, AURANGABAD. 4. THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER, AURANGABAD…………………...RESPONDENTS ----------- FOR APPELLANT:- MR. N. GANGULY, ADV. MR. UMESH PATHAK, ADV. MR. SANJAY KR. MISHRA, ADV. FOR THE STATE:- MR. A.K. PANDEY, G.A.9 ----------- Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. It appears that appellant/writ petitioner was working as an Advocate’s Clerk with Government Advocate, Aurangabad and on his recommendation in 1987 he was assured a payment of Rs.60/- per month by the District Magistrate, Aurangabad for working as part time Clerk to the Government Advocate. Subsequently, the amount was raised to Rs.90/- per month. The letter 2 approving his engagement dated 11.11.1987 (Annexure-3) mentions that the engagement is on the recommendation of the Government Advocate and shall last only till his tenure as Government Advocate and shall end automatically thereafter. The letter further mentions that the appellant shall not be granted recognition as a regular Government servant. 3. The appellant preferred writ petition claiming regularization in service under the Government and for revising his remuneration to at least minimum wages prescribed for workmen. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Supreme Court judgments make it clear that non payment of minimum wages to workmen violates Article-23 of the Constitution of India. 5. The writ Court has dismissed the writ petition summarily after noticing that the concerned lawyer is dead and claim of a Lawyer’s Clerk for payment will abide by contract between the Lawyer and the Clerk and such contract cannot be enforced at least in writ jurisdiction. 6. Considering the nature of appointment which is not against any post sanctioned by the State and naturally 3 there being no prescribed scale for such a post, there can be no question of ordering for regularizing the service of the appellant especially when the concerned Lawyer is no more. So far as the issue of payment of minimum wages is concerned, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any reliable or sufficient material to give a finding as to whether the appellant can be treated as a workman for the purpose of Minimum Wages Act or not especially when he was not even engaged on full time basis but only as a part time Clerk to the Government Advocate. Hence, we are not persuaded to interfere. The appeal is dismissed. 7. It will be open for the appellant, if he is so advised to approach proper authority to claim minimum wages if he is entitled for the same. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)