JUDGMENT : 1. This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Gandak Yojana Karamchari Kalyan Sangh through its General Secretary, Shri T.N. Verma, and one Ramakant Singh, a truck driver, against the respondents. 2. The facts alleged in the petition are that petitioner no.1, namely, the Gandak Yojana Karamchari Kalyan Sangh, hereinafter called the Kalyan Singh, is a registered Union of the Gandak Project workers under the Indian Trade Unions Act and recognized by the respondents. Petitioner no.2 was employed as a motor vehicle driver by the River Valley Project under the State of Bihar in the year 1958 as a workcharged employee and that he is at present working at Balmikinagar, Gandak Project. The persons employed as work-charged under the Gandak Project are required throughout the year for the maintenance of the works, etc. The work-charged employees like others are the employees of the State of Bihar and are paid under the rules provided for all other Bihar Government servants. On representation of the work charged employees, the State of Bihar, respondent no. 1, by Government ORDER :No. 1344 dated the 4th February, 1949, decided that the conditions of service of work charged employees would be the same as those of the temporary Government servants, and they would be made permanent if the work in the workcharged establishment was of a permanent nature. A copy of the said Government letter containing the ORDER :has been annexed as Annexure 'A' to the petition. It is thereafter alleged that the Government of Bihar revised the payscales of all the employees from the 1st of April, 1964, and the same was also made available to the work charged employees of the State of Bihar. A clarification in this behalf issued as per memo no, PR 2-65-121-3-FII dated the 23rd November, 1965, by the Finance Department, Pay Revision Section, has been annexed as Annexure ‘B’ to the petition. A copy of Paragraph 20 of resolution no. PRC-2-55/67-FII dated the 10th March, 1965, and a copy of the instructions for fixation of pay have been annexed as Annexure 'B/1' and 'B/3' to the petition. It is alleged that in spite of various demands by the workcharged employees of the Gandak Project, they have been denied the benefits of the revised pay scales. PRC-2-55/67-FII dated the 10th March, 1965, and a copy of the instructions for fixation of pay have been annexed as Annexure 'B/1' and 'B/3' to the petition. It is alleged that in spite of various demands by the workcharged employees of the Gandak Project, they have been denied the benefits of the revised pay scales. The work-charged employees of other departments have been given the benefits of the revised pay-scales with effect from the 1st April, 1964, except the workcharged employees of the River Valley Project. The facility of the contributory provident fund has been extended to the work-charged employees posted at Tenughat Project and at Ramnagar division under the River Valley Project, but the said benefit has not been extended to the work charged employees of the Gandak Project. Further, the benefit of field allowance was extended to the workcharged employees of the Canal Division of Muzaffarpur but not to the work charged employees of the Gandak Project at Balmikinagar. The other facilities like house rent allowance, medical facilities, field allowance, duty dress etc., are given to the temporary staff of the State of Bihar doing similar works as that of the work-charged employees of the Gandak Project, and yet the said facilities have been arbitrarily denied to those workers although the status, as decided by the Government of these workers is that of a temporary employee of the State of Bihar. It has further been asserted that recently it has been decided by the State of Bihar to make various temporary posts, which are continuing for more than three years and are likely to continue in future, as permanent. A copy of the letter of the Deputy Secretary, Appointment Department, is Annexure 'G' to the petition. 3. The denial of the facilities of temporary employees to the work-charged employees of the Gandak Project at Balmikinagar has occasioned the filing of the instant writ application by the petitioners on various grounds mentioned in the petition. The petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or ORDER :directing the respondents to extend to the workcharged employees posted at Balmikinagar all the facilities and benefits of service of temporary Government servants discharging similar functions as those of work-charged employees of the Gandak Project at Balmikinagar. 4. Cause has been shown by the respondents. 4. Cause has been shown by the respondents. In the counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that all persons employed by the Government are not Government servants, specially the persons employed on daily basis are workers who get their daily wages in accordance with the Minimum Wages Act. Persons appointed on work-charged establishment are workmen who are governed, by and large, by various labour laws in force concerning such staff. The pay and allowance of work-charged staff are charged against a particular work on which they are employed. The Gandak Project is in its construction phase, and, therefore, the question of maintenance of works does not arise at present. The work-charged employees are not like other permanent or temporary employees of the State. It is not correct to say that the work-charged employees are paid under rules provided for all other Government servants. The pay and allowance of permanent and temporary Government servants (gazetted and non-gazetted) are voted and passed by the State Legislature; on the other hand, the emoluments of the workcharged staff are met out of the technically sanctioned estimate of work in which they are employed. The Gandak Project is still in construction, and, hence it is premature to take up the question of making the work-charged staff permanent at this stage. The replacement scales fixed generally for the employees depended on the unrevised existing scales as in 1962, which is not the case in so far as River Valley Project Department is concerned. The members of the work-charged establishment were already contributing to the contributory provident fund before the 4th February, 1949, and they were allowed the option to continue to do so or to elect to contribute to the General Provident Fund by an ORDER :of the State Government contained in Annexure 'A’ attached to the counter affidavit. This position was affirmed by letter no.4666 F dated the 25th March, 1960, contained in Annexure 'B' to the counter-affidavit. The Gandak Project commenced in the year 1960, and as such the benefit of contributory provident fund is not admissible to the members of the work-charged establishment under this project which has come into existence eleven years after the stoppage of this benefit. The Gandak Project commenced in the year 1960, and as such the benefit of contributory provident fund is not admissible to the members of the work-charged establishment under this project which has come into existence eleven years after the stoppage of this benefit. The River Valley Project Department issued ORDER :to give the benefit of provident fund contribution to the workcharged staff, but the ORDER :could not be implemented due to some technical difficulty in maintenance of the accounts. The benefit of provident fund could not be yet extended to the work-charged establishment of the Gandak Project, not because of any lapse on the part of the Government but because of refusal by the Accountant General to maintain the accounts. The River Valley Project Department has accepted that the benefit of the general provident fund should be given, but the circumstances have prevented the implementation of the same. The field allowance was given in Canal Division, Muzaffarpur without the sanction of the Government, and, therefore, subsequently, it was adjusted against the pay of the workmen who were given such allowance. The house rent allowance is admissible only to those employees who are posted at Patna, Gaya, Dhalbhum and Dhanbad Sub-division. The medical facilities are being given to the work-charged staff like other Government servants. Similarly, duty dress is being provided to the work-charged staff according to the nature of their duty. The status of the employees of workcharged establishment is not the same as that of the temporary Government servants. Only some specified concessions admissible to the temporary Government servants have been extended to the Work-charged staff in accordance with the Government ORDER :contained in Public Works Department's Circular letter no. 94 dated the 22nd August, 1950. Finally, it has been stated that the demands of the petitioners are not valid, and the assertions made by them in support of their demands are illegal, improper and untenable. On the above averments, it has been prayed that the writ application of the petitioners should be dismissed. 5. A reply on behalf of the petitioners to the counter-affidavit has also been filed. On the above averments, it has been prayed that the writ application of the petitioners should be dismissed. 5. A reply on behalf of the petitioners to the counter-affidavit has also been filed. It has once more been asserted by the petitioners that the work charged employees have been always admitted by the State of Bihar to hold the status of temporary Government servants, and therefore, all the facilities admissible to such Government servants should have been extended to the workcharged employees of the Gandak Project. 6. Mr. Tarakant Jha, appearing for the respondents, contended that an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of mandamus can only be made at the instance of an individual who is himself an aggrieved person. It was contended that the Kalyan Sangh or, in any event, the General Secretary of' the Kalyan Sangh is not a person who is himself aggrieved by any action on the part of the respondents. Reliance was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in support of the contention that anybody affected by law or Act could personally challenge the inherent jurisdiction. In (1) Charanjit Lal Chowdhury V. The Union of India and others (A.I.R. 1951 Supreme Court 41), Fazl Ali, J. approved of the dictum laid down in (2) McCabe V. Atchison, (1914) 235 U.S. 151 in these words : "It is an elementary principle that in ORDER :to justify the granting of this extraordinary relief, the complainant's need of it and the absence of an adequate remedy at law must clearly appear. The complainant cannot succeed because someone may be hurt. Nor does it make any difference that other persons who may be injured are persons of the same race or occupation. It is the fact, clearly established, of injury to the complainant not to others-which justifies judicial inference." Similar observations occurring in (3) General Secretary, Eastern Zone Insurance Employees' Association V. Zonal Manager, Eastern Zone, Life Insurance Corporation and others (A.I.R. 1962 Calcutta 45) and in (4) Industrial Employees Union V. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (A.I.R. 1960 Allahabad 738) were cited by Mr. Jha. Therefore, I am of the opinion that if the right of the petitioner no. 1 is not directly affected I do not think that petitioner no. 1 would be entitled to present the petition. Jha. Therefore, I am of the opinion that if the right of the petitioner no. 1 is not directly affected I do not think that petitioner no. 1 would be entitled to present the petition. Even if the petitioners' association is registered under Section 4 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, that will not give it a right to present a petition. It is an elementary principle that in ORDER :to justify the granting of this extraordinary relief in the shape of writ of mandamus, the petitioners need of it in the absence of an adequate remedy in law must clearly appear. 7. As against this, it was argued by Mr. Ranen Roy that our Constitution has made no provision in this respect and, therefore, the Court should follow the principles of Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Mr. Ranen Roy relied on several decisions in support of his contention that writ applications by the labour unions had been entertained by the Court. Mr. Ranen Roy also tried to distinguish (3) the Calcutta case by saying that the application had been filed by the General Secretary, Eastern Zone Insurance Employee's Association, and, therefore, it was held that it was not entertainable. Had the Association filed the writ, it could not have been rejected as not maintainable by the Calcutta High Court. According to Mr. Roy, the Allahabad case is an extreme one and has been wrongly decided. Therefore, both the cases should not be relied upon in deciding that petitioner no. 1 and no locus standi to file the writ application in the instant case. Reliance was placed in this connection on a decision in (5) Gadde Venkateswara Rao V. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others (A.I.R. 1966 Supreme Court 828). In this Supreme Court case, the appellant was the President of the Panchayat Samithi of Dharmajigudem. The villagers of Dharmajigudem formed a committee with the appellant as President for the purpose of collecting contributions from the villagers for setting up the Primary Health Centre. The appellant represented the village in all its dealings with the Block Development Committee and the Panchayat Samithi in the matter of the location of the Primary Health Centre at Dharmajigudem. The appellant was, therefore, a representative of the committee which was in law the trustees of the amounts collected by it from the villagers for a public purpose. The appellant represented the village in all its dealings with the Block Development Committee and the Panchayat Samithi in the matter of the location of the Primary Health Centre at Dharmajigudem. The appellant was, therefore, a representative of the committee which was in law the trustees of the amounts collected by it from the villagers for a public purpose. Therefore, it was held that the appellant had the right to maintain the application, under Article 226 of the Constitution. The facts of this case are quite different and have no application to the instant case. The other case relied upon by Mr. Ranen Roy arose out of the Industrial Disputes Act. Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act permits the representation of an aggrieved person by another who is not himself aggrieved, but such representation is only possible in a proceeding under the Act. I can see no reason why in any proceeding not under the Act, the same procedure should be followed. Courts of law are not free to adopt the procedure prescribed by law in a particular case to another set of circumstances unless sanctioned. Petitioner no. 1 has not been prejudiced by the action of the respondents. Therefore, the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution at its instance is not maintainable. 8. Petitioner no. 2 has nowhere alleged what injury he has sustained. General allegations have been made which are generally no ground for granting writ of mandamus. However, it is just and proper to decide the points raised by the petitioner in the circumstances of the case. 9. It was very strenuously argued on behalf of the petitioners that the work-charged employees, being the employees of the State of Bihar, are being deprived of their legitimate and legal rights in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. All the persons employed by Government are not Government servants in technical sense. The persons employed on daily basis are workers who get their daily wages in accordance with the Minimum Wages Act. Similar is the position of the employees of the work-charged establishments. The pay and allowance of work-charged staff are charged against a particular work on which they are employed making provisions of the same in the estimate of the work concerned as laid down in Paragraph 61 of the Public Works Department Code. Similar is the position of the employees of the work-charged establishments. The pay and allowance of work-charged staff are charged against a particular work on which they are employed making provisions of the same in the estimate of the work concerned as laid down in Paragraph 61 of the Public Works Department Code. Consequently, I do not think that the work-charged employees are like other permanent or temporary, Gazetted or non-gazetted, Government servants. Mr. Ranen Roy further relied on a decision of this Court in (6) Abdul Rahim V. The State of Bihar and others (Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 867 of 1956) decided on the 25th April, 1958, in which it was contended that Abdul Rahim, appointed as a driver for truck on work-charged establishment, became a permanent Government employee by virtue of Government Circular No. 1344 E dated the 4th February, 1949, issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Bihar. The contention on behalf of the petitioner in that case was that his services were terminated without any proceeding being drawn up to show cause against the termination of the services. It was, therefore, contended that the ORDER :of termination of his services was illegal and ultra vires. The Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, conceded that the ORDER :of termination of services of the petitioner was illegal and ultra vires. The JUDGMENT : of this Court was based upon the concession made by the Government Advocate and the ORDER :of termination of the petitioner's services was quashed by a writ in the nature of certiorari issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In my opinion, this case is no authority for holding that the services of a workcharged employee become permanent automatically after lapse of a certain period. The point under consideration has not been decided in that writ case. From Annexure 'A’ to the writ application as also from Annexure 'H' filed by the petitioners along with their reply to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it appears that there was an industrial dispute between the parties and some settlement was arrived at in a conciliation proceeding before the Labour Commissioner. Mr. From Annexure 'A’ to the writ application as also from Annexure 'H' filed by the petitioners along with their reply to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it appears that there was an industrial dispute between the parties and some settlement was arrived at in a conciliation proceeding before the Labour Commissioner. Mr. Tarakant Jha contended before us that if the Government are not observing the terms of those agreements, it would only amount to a breach of contract, and no writ in the nature of mandamus will lie to enforce the terms of a contract. He further informed us that the Government are implementing the terms contained in the agreements, and any apprehension by the petitioners was uncalled for. 10. It has been stated on behalf of the respondents that all members of the work-charged establishment are not entitled to the benefits of the contributory provident fund. The ORDER :of the State Government contained in the Public Works Department's letter no.3404 dated the 24th May, 1950 (Annexure A of the counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents) may be taken as Government policy in this regard. The members of the work-charged establishment, who were already contributing to the contributory provident fund before the 4th February, 1949, were allowed to do so or to elect to contribute to the General Provident Fund, while contribution to the contributory provident fund by those who were not already contributing to it was strictly prohibited. This position was affirmed in Finance Department's letter no. 4666F dated the 25th March, 1960. The Gandak Project commenced in the year 1960, and, therefore, it is apparent that the benefit of the contributory provident fund was not admissible to the members of the work-charged establishment under the Project. The Government were anxious to give the benefit of the provident fund contribution to the work-charged staff but due to some technical difficulty raised on the side of the Accountant General, the same is not being fully implemented Mr. Jha stated before us that the facility of the General Provident Fund would be extended to the work-charged establishment whenever it is found convenient to do so. 11. In view of the above, the rule must be discharged but without any ORDER :for cost. I agree.