IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1511 of 2010 Sri Muneshwar Paswan & Ors. Versus State Of Bihar & Ors. ------ 6. 10.08.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the State. The direction in the writ petition was to pay the arrears, if any, of daily wage. No specific amount or duration of months/days were specified. Learned Counsel for the petitioners very fairly acknowledges today that the documentary evidence for the days that the petitioners had worked were not appended to the writ petition. He however submits that the respondents were raising frivolous pleas to deny legitimate dues. Earlier they said no records were available and now they were unnecessarily seeking to link working of the petitioners to the flow of water in the canal which was not relevant. In absence of any direction for payment of any specified amount, the respondents disputing the claim, failure of the petitioner to enclose proof of the work in the writ petition, it is not possible to proceed in the matter for further enquiry in the contempt jurisdiction. If so advised the petitioners may approach the respondent authorities with the documentary evidence of the dates that they have worked and the claim for denial of wages for those dates . In that event the respondents are bound to consider the claim and dispose if off by a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of eight weeks from the date of receipt and/or presentation of such application/evidence. Needless to state that any order so passed by the respondents cannot be scrutinized in the contempt jurisdiction and if aggrieved the remedy for the petitioner shall lie in a fresh writ petition. The contempt proceeding stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)