IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5895 of 2002 Shambhu Prasad Yadav, S/o Kapildeo Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village Barba Parsauni, Post Pirari, West Champaran, at present working as Guard at Bio-Mass Research Centre, Hari Batika, West Champaran, Betia. ---------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary Land Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Vice-Chancellor, Baba Saheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Muzaffarpur. 4. The Registrar, Baba Saheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Muzaffarpur. 5. The Head of the Department, Botany, Baba Saheb Bhim Ram Ambedkar University, Muzaffarpur. 6. The Manager, Betia Raj, under the Court of Ward Betia, District West Champaran. 7. The Certificate Officer, Betia, West Champaran. ---------- Respondents ----------- 5 23.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State as also counsel for the Bihar University. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1(i) For direction to the Respondent Authorities to pay the arrears of salary since May 1994 to till date. (ii) For further direction to the Respondent Authorities to treat the Petitioner of the Staff of Baba Saheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, or to the Staff of Betia Raj under the Court of ward and to pay current salary. (iii) For a direction to the Certificate Officer to expedite the Certificate Case No. 2195 of 2 1996.” Counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, very fairly draws attention of this Court towards an order of the Labour Superintendent dated 6.9.1994 to show that when the petitioner’s payment of salary was withheld, he had moved the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, who by an order dated 3.7.1995, was pleased to determine the liability of Betia Raj for payment of Rs. 2,352/- and in fact when the said amount was not paid, the Certificate Case No. 2195-96 was also filed by the authority of the Labour Department for realization of the amount. He would, therefore, contend that when the relationship of the petitioner with Betia Raj as an employee is an admitted fact and the Manager, Betia Raj by his letter dated 22.12.1998 had also requested the Secretary of the Board of Revenue to treat the petitioner to have continued in service as he was guarding the trees planted in the land of Betia Raj, the petitioner would not be only entitled for payment of full salary but also for being absorbed in the service of the State. 3 In the opinion of this Court, the payment of salary of the petitioner would be wholly dependent on the terms of the appointment. His appointment letter, however, is not on record and therefore, if the petitioner in past could establish his claim before the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, he could still invoke the same remedy where the terms of the appointment may not of much relevance if the petitioner has admittedly continued to work till date. In writ jurisdiction, however, payment of salary can only be directed if the petitioner is backed by a valid legal order of appointment. As noted above, there is no such order and therefore, this Court would find it difficult to allow the claim of payment of salary of the petitioner either on the basis of an agreement copy of which is not on record or on the basis of some letter of recommendation to the Secretary of Member Board of Revenue dated 22.12.1998. Thus, so far the claim of the petitioner for payment of arrear of salary from May, 1994 till date is concerned, this 4 writ application must be held to be not maintainable in view of the alternative remedy already availed by the petitioner in terms of the Minimum Wages Act. Similarly, this Court cannot execute the certificate filed by the authority of the Labour Department for payment of salary already allowed by the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, which is said to be the subject matter of Certificate Case No. 2195- 96. Therefore, this relief also cannot be given in view of the specific provision made under the Bihar Public Demand Recovery Act itself. Coming to the last relief of the petitioner for treating him either as the staff of the University or as the staff of Betia Raj, this Court would find that this issue will be solely dependent on the terms and condition of the petitioner’s appointment. There is, however, no order of appointment of the petitioner on record, it will be also very difficult for this Court to assume that the petitioner’s appointment was made in Betia Raj with the approval of the 5 State Government. As is know, the property of Betia Raj is custodia-legis and therefore, this aspect of the matter with regard to the fate and future of the petitioner, as an employee of the Betia Raj, is to be decided by the competent authority looking after the interest of the Betia Raj. With the aforementioned observation, this writ application is dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)