Harendra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6696 of 2026 ====================================================== Harendra Kumar Son of Motilal Singh, Resident of Village- Atapa, P.O. Gotpa, P.S. Bikramganj, District- Rohtas (Bihar), Pin- 802212. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Labour Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Labour Superintendent, Bhojpur (Ara).

3.

The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Bhojpur (Ara). 4.

The Incharge Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Tarari, DistrictBhojpur. 5.

Elitefalcons Pvt. Ltd., through its Proprietor/Director, 101, Sri Ram Tower Kankarbagh, Main Road, Patna.

6.

The Regional Officer, Elitefalcons Pvt. Ltd., Regional Office, at 510, 5th Floor, Modi Tower 98 Henikunt Tower Nehru Place, New Delhi- 110019. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Upendra Prasad Singh, Advocate For the State :

Mr. G.P.11 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 04-05-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

"For issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus, commanding and directing the respondent concerned to release the salary of the petitioner amounting to Rs.1,46,268/-, which has been withheld by the respondents concern, specially respondents no. 5 & 6, with interest as well as litigation cost be awarded in favour of the petitioner."

Patna High Court CWJC No.6696 of 2026(2) dt.04-05-2026 2/2

3. At the outset, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State raises a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition and submits that the relief sought for in the writ petition is against respondents no.5 and 6, who are not the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable.

4. It appears from the prayer made in the present writ petition that the petitioner was engaged by respondents no.5 and 6, and as per his assertion, salary is due to be paid to him. However, respondents no.5 and 6 appears to be a private agency hired by the State of Bihar for giving/providing men power.

5. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioner can take appropriate recourse, as available to him under law.

(Ritesh Kumar, J.) Sanjay/- U