IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10462 of 2006 MITHILESH KUMAR SINGH, son of Banarsi Singh, resident of Ward No.1, P.S. Bhabua, District Kaimur at Bhabua … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Magistrate cum Chairman, District Blindness Control Committee Kaimur at Bhabua 3. The Chief Medical Officer cum Deputy Chairman District Blindness Control Committee Kaimur (Bhabua) 4. The Deputy Superintendent Sadar Hospital Bhabua cum Secretary, District Blindness Control Committee Kaimur at Bhabua 5. The Additional Chief Medical Officer Kaimur at Bhabua 6. The Treasury Officer, Kaimur at Bhabua … Respondents. ----------- 2. 20.8.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows: “This application is being filed for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs directing the respondents to make payment of daily wages of the petitioner since March, 2000 till 5.6.2003 who had alongwith statutory as well penal interest who had worked as daily Assistant in District Blindness Control Committee since 14.9.1996 till his resignation i.e. on 5.6.2003.” Counsel for the petitioner at the out set was asked as with regard to the appointment letter of the petitioner because 2 the case of the petitioner is that though he was entitled for payment of daily wages at the rate of 47/- per day, the respondents have made payment at the rate of 42/- per day and that too without dearness allowance. When the counsel for the petitioner had produced the order of appointment of the petitioner it became clear that the petitioner was never employed in connection with the affairs of the State nor was a Government Servant and in fact his engagement was made with regard to District Blindness Control Society of which the Collector of the District used to be the Chairman. The Society registered under the Societies Registration Act ipso facto cannot be treated to be the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and merely because the Collector of the District happened to be the Chairman that by itself may not be the deciding factor to hold the said Society amenable to writ jurisdiction. Reference in this connection may be made to the case of Ajay Hasia vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & ors., reported in AIR 1981 S.C. 487. 3 In such a situation when this Court would find that the writ application is not maintainable the remedy for the petitioner for claiming daily wages for the period he had worked would be under the Payment of Wages Act where he will have all the liberty to show the rate on which his salary was to be paid by the District Blindness Society. It will also be open for the petitioner to claim the full wages before the competent authority under the Payment of Wages Act and in doing so the petitioner may also adduce evidence showing earlier payment made to him at the rate of 47/- per day with dearness allowance. With the aforementioned observation, this application is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/