IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4777 of 2004 Nandu Sah, son of Late Laljee Sah, resident of Village & Post-Mejorganj, P.S. Mejorganj, District Sitamarhi… …..Petitioner Versus 1. The Zila Parishad, Sitamarhi through the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, 2. The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum- Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sitamarhi.. …Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For the Zila Parishad : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Singh, Advocate ……….. 5 28.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Zila Parishad. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2. Petitioner seeks payment of fixed wages from May 1998 to till date with interest at the rate of 12 % per annum and cost, if any. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that vide Memo No. 82 dated 6.7.1995 (Annexure-1), he was given charge of the concerned Inspection Bungalow on the fixed wages of Rs. 500/- per month, after his retirement, for looking after the said Inspection Bungalow and charge was handed 2 over to him by one Ram Balak Mahto who was transferred to some other place. In the counter affidavit, it has been submitted that the petitioner was engaged for looking after the concerned Inspection Bungalow at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. Thereafter, he was verbally informed that from the month of May 1998 his service would not be required. Thus, he cannot seek payment of the wages for which he has not worked. Learned counsel for the Petitioner fairly submits that after superannuation, he was engaged on fixed wages of Rs.500/- per month and there was no appointment in the eyes of law. However, he submits that for the period he has worked, he is entitled for wages. From the perusal of the records of this case, it appears that the claim of the petitioner is that he has not been paid wages since May 1998, however, he has filed this writ application in the year 2004. Annexure-2 which, according to the petitioner, is a representation (dated 22.9.2003) also does not bear any endorsement acknowledging its receipt by 3 the department. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that this document has been created only with a purpose to make out a cause of action. It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has not given back the charge as yet. However, this assertion is noted only to be rejected as admittedly there has been no appointment of the petitioner, therefore, there would be no question of taking and giving charges. It is also not believable that petitioner had worked for about six years without being paid any wages and without making any representation for same. In above view of the matter, it appears that the petitioner, after several years, has tried to raise a stale claim by filing this writ application though admittedly he has never been appointed on any post rather he was engaged by the department on some wage. There is categorical submission on behalf of the State that no work has been taken from him since May, 1998. For the work done till that period, he has already been paid the due wages. In above view of the matter, it would not 4 be possible for this Court to grant any relief in exercise of its discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. Sanjay-II ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)