Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

In a socially significant ruling, the Patna High Court dealt with a legal issue involving two daily wage earners who sought payment for the period they had worked before their services were terminated by the Bihar Law Department. The petitioners had earlier approached the High Court in 2006 but withdrew that writ petition unconditionally in 2012. In 2019, they filed a fresh writ petition seeking wages for the services they had rendered.

The State argued that the second writ petition was not maintainable as it was based on the same cause of action that had earlier been withdrawn without permission to refile. Relying on a full bench decision in Mahanth Ramkinkar Das v. State of Bihar (2017), the State contended that an unconditional withdrawal bars a second writ petition on the same matter.

The petitioners’ counsel, however, cited multiple Supreme Court judgments—including Ahmedabad Manufacturing Co. and V.D. Barot—to argue that unconditional withdrawal does not always bar subsequent writs, especially when the circumstances justify it. It was pointed out that the earlier petition might have been withdrawn due to lack of documentation, hope for administrative resolution, or informal assurances from the authorities.

The court noted that after the first writ was withdrawn in 2012, the State continued deliberating on the matter until 2014 and entertained fresh representations as late as June 2019. This continuous administrative engagement suggested that the issue was not abandoned. Furthermore, the petitioners were daily wage workers, and the matter involved wages for work already performed—an issue rooted in their right to livelihood.

The court emphasized that no one should be made to work without remuneration, and procedural bars cannot be used to defeat fundamental rights. The court refused to dismiss the writ on technical grounds, invoking the broader principle: “Law is good but justice is better.”

Accordingly, the court directed the State to consider the petitioners’ representation within four weeks and to pass a reasoned order within eight weeks thereafter. It clarified that the court had not commented on the merits of the wage claim, but only ensured administrative consideration.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This judgment reinforces the judiciary’s role in safeguarding the rights of economically vulnerable individuals against procedural rigidity. The court’s decision affirms that:

• Procedural technicalities like unconditional withdrawal of a prior writ should not defeat substantive rights, especially when the matter concerns livelihood.
• Administrative bodies cannot benefit from delays or inaction, especially when they continue engaging with the petitioner’s claim informally or internally.
• Courts retain discretion to allow subsequent petitions when justice so demands.

This precedent can provide relief to workers who may have made procedural errors in past litigation but continue to pursue their legitimate dues through administrative channels.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with Reasoning

• Is a second writ petition barred if an earlier one was withdrawn unconditionally without liberty to refile?
  • Generally yes, but not always. The court ruled that in exceptional circumstances—like ongoing administrative consideration and matters involving livelihood—the bar does not apply rigidly.
• Did the petitioners abandon their wage claim by withdrawing the earlier petition?
  • No. The court noted that the State itself continued deliberations post-withdrawal and the petitioners made fresh representations.
• Can unpaid daily wage workers be denied remuneration on technical grounds?
  • No. The court emphasized that no person should be made to work without compensation, regardless of their employment status.
• What remedy was provided by the court?
  • The petitioners were directed to submit a representation within 4 weeks, and the State must decide the matter within 8 weeks thereafter.

Judgments Referred by Parties

• Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Printing Co. Ltd. v. Workmen, (1981) 2 SCC 663
• V.D. Barot v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 668
• Sarguja Transport Service v. STAT, (1987) 1 SCC 5
• Sarva Shramik Sanghatana v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 1 SCC 494
• Daryao v. State of U.P., AIR 1961 SC 1457

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court

• Mahanth Ramkinkar Das v. State of Bihar, (2017) 1 PLJR 909
• Rita Mishra v. Director Primary Education, Bihar, (1987) PLJR 1090
• Kishori Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1985 Patna 298

Case Title
Arun Kumar Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Ors.

Case Number
CWJC No. 14797 of 2019

Citation(s)
2021(1)PLJR 98

Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
Mr. Amish Kumar and Mr. Prabhakar Thakur – for the petitioners
Mr. Manish Kumar (GP 4) – for the State

Link to Judgment
https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTQ3OTcjMjAxOSMxI04=-9iVfNswMqKE=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.