Harendra Kumar vs The State of Bihar — CWJC/6696/2026
Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 04th May 2026.
CNR: BRHC010368372026
e-Filing Number
06-04-2026
Filing Number
CWJC/8125/2026
Filing Date
07-Apr-2026
Registration No
CWJC/6696/2026
Registration Date
29-Apr-2026
Judge
Mr. Justice Ritesh Kumar
Coram
Mr. Justice Ritesh Kumar
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
CIVIL WRIT ( 15 )
Sub-Category
SALARY, HEALTH SER. ( 4305 )
Judicial Branch
Judicial Section
Decision Date
04-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Last updated 01-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Harendra Kumar
Adv. Upendra Prasad Singh,Harendra Kumar,Harendra Kumar, ,Harendra Kumar
Respondent(s)
-
1.The State of Bihar
-
2.The Labour Superintendent,
-
3.The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer,
-
4.The Incharge Medical Officer,
-
5.Elitefalcons Pvt. Ltd.,
-
6.The Regional Officer,
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
04-May-2026
Mr. Justice Ritesh KumarView PDF
Case Summary: The Patna High Court dismissed Harendra Kumar's writ petition seeking mandamus to recover Rs. 1,46,268 in withheld salary from Elitefalcons Pvt. Ltd. and its regional officer, finding the petition not maintainable. The court held that since Elitefalcons is a private manpower agency hired by Bihar (not a state entity under Article 12 of the Constitution), writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked against it. The petitioner was directed to pursue other available legal remedies. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
30-Apr-2026
For Admission - Fresh Cases
-
07-Apr-2026
Case filed
Registration No. CWJC/6696/2026
Case Summary: The Patna High Court dismissed Harendra Kumar's writ petition seeking mandamus to recover Rs. 1,46,268 in withheld salary from Elitefalcons Pvt. Ltd. and its regional officer, finding the petition not maintainable. The court held that since Elitefalcons is a private manpower agency hired by Bihar (not a state entity under Article 12 of the Constitution), writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked against it. The petitioner was directed to pursue other available legal remedies. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts