IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5181 of 2005 M/S GAUTAM ELECTRICALS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Dhamendra Chaubey For the B.S.E.B : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh 2 18.9.2008 Petitioner had been given a work order by the Superintending Engineer, Chapra Electrical Circle,Chapra to instal electric connection in 350 houses under Kutir Jyoti Scheme. Petitioner alleges that he completed the work in March, 2001 itself but has not been paid any amount In the counter affidavit, it is admitted by the respondent- Board that as against claim of installing connection in 350 houses, as per progress report available to the respondent ,petitioner had connected only 219 houses and for the rest Board had called for a report from the concerned Panchayat Samiti in the year 2002 itself, which is pending. It is further submitted that the petitioner had not entered into any formal agreement with the Board though .It is admitted that the work order , pursuant to which work was done by the petitioner, was issued by the Superintending Engineer of the Board. Heard the parties and with their consent the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. From the averments, as made in the writ petition and the counter affidavit, it is undisputed that the work order was issued by - 2 - the Superintending Engineer concerned in relation to the scheme, which the Board to execute. That being so, if the petitioner worked pursuant to the said work order, then merely because no agreement was signed or entered into between the parties, he cannot be denied payment for the work done. The default, if any, on the part of the Superintending Engineer, an employee of the Board in not getting the agreement signed issued work order. For the fault of the Board or its employee, the petitioner cannot be suffered nor can Board take advantage of its own default. Thus, non signing of agreement in such circumstances is of no consequence. Petitioner claims, who have connected 350 houses under the scheme . In the counter affidavit, it is admitted by the Board that as per report available with them petitioner had, in fact, connected 219 connections under the scheme, because verification for the balance claim was pending no payment was made in respect of even undisputed amount.This is curious stand by Board, which is the State instrumentality within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and cannot act in such an arbitrary manner of denying payments even in respect of work done and admitted. Thus, I direct that payment in respect of 219 connections , as done by the petitioner , be made to the petitioner within one month, failing which the same would have to be made along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the time it was due to the time payment is made. So far as balance work is concerned, Board itself admits that it had sought clarification from the concerned Panchayat but - 3 - having sent the query the Board went into deep slumber. It is time to wake up and follow the matter expeditiously through its local officers and inform the petitioner of the out come thereof positively within two months from today. With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh)