IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3004 of 2004 1. JAGANNATH SINGH, son of late Narayan Singh, resident of Parti tola, Raghubansh Road, District – Muzaffarpur. 2. Bhagwan Sahay Singh, son of Sri Singh, resident of Katragarh, P.S. Katra, District – Muzaffarpur. 3. Mithilesh Devi, widow of Devendra Prasad, resident of village – Pratappur, P.S. Lalganj, District – Vaishali. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Inspector General of Registration, Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Registrar cum Collector, Muzaffarpur, District – Muzaffarpur. 4. The District Sub Registrar, Muzaffarpur, District – Muzaffarpur. ----------- 03. 14.7.2010 Prayer of the petitioners for a direction upon the respondents to give them benefit of salary or other payments at par with one Surendra Jha and to quash annexure-8, which is a speaking order passed by the respondents and its validity is the issue to be answered by this Court. Submission of the counsel is that four persons who were working as extra clerks in the Registration Department in the district of Muzaffarpur, came to be removed illegally. It was at the intervention of the High Court that they were reinstated vide various orders which have been brought on record. For non-compliance of the order and the observation of the High court in the case of Surendra Jha a contempt application was filed. Allegations were made that the respondents were not willing to comply with the directions of the Court which held that the petitioner (of that case) will be entitled to continue in service as not removed even for the three years as also for payment of emoluments in accordance 2 with law. Because of the order in the contempt application the authorities paid a sum of Rs.191/- per month to Surendra Jha to wriggle out of the contempt. That has been made the basis for claiming relief by these three petitioners. Petitioners had also moved the High Court earlier in CWJC No. 296 of 2003 which was disposed of with a direction upon the respondents to pass a speaking order. Annexure-8 is the speaking order which is under challenge in the present writ application. The Court has gone through the speaking order and found no illegality in the same. The speaking order by itself indicates that petitioners had worked as extra hands in the Registration Department not on any pay scale or a fixed salary. They are paid a lump sum for the day they are given work. If it is so, obviously it is not a case of permanent employment under the State and the observation of the High Court given earlier which led to payment to Surendra Jha cannot become a basis in view of the factual position and the rules which has been brought to the notice of the Court. Even otherwise the observation of the Court was that the petitioner was entitled to all remuneration in law. Annexure-8 lays down the reasons which also indicates the issue of payment. Since petitioners were not drawing any pay-scale but are paid per day on work being assigned no payment seeking parity with Surendra Jha can be claimed . The writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. The speaking order is in order and is based on the registration manual. Rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)