IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5933 of 2009 RABINDRA MAHTO Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 12.05.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner claims to be a daily wage appointee. If he has worked on particular days he is entitled to his wages in accordance with law. Learned Counsel for the State submits that this is a matter for verification of facts from the records. This Court cannot take objection to that. The writ application is therefore disposed with the direction that daily wage of the petitioner has to be paid for the days that he may have worked. If the petitioner has worked on daily wage paucity of funds cannot be a defence as surely the State itself would not like to violate Article 23 of the Constitution apart from invoking prosecution against its own officials for non payment of minimum wages. Let the grievance of the petitioner be redressed in accordance with law within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)