IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16728 of 2008 Rameshwar Prasad Singh son of Sri. Satan Prasad Singh, resident of Village-Mahuat, P.S.-Sonhan(Bhabhua), District-Kaimur, at present posted as Panchayat Sewak, Kuddi Panchayat, Chand Block in the District of Kaimur at Bhabhua. …….Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabhua 3. The Deputy Development Officer, Chand Block, District-Kaimur at Bhabhua. 4. The Block Development Officer, Chand Block, District-Kaimur at Bhabhua. 5. The Programme Officer-cum-Block Development Officer, Chand, District-Kaimur at Bhabhua. 6. The Executive Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabhua. ……..Respondents ----------- 04. 27.03.2009 Petitioner is a Panchayat Sewak under Chand Sub-Division of District-Kaimur. Certain work has to be done under National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme being plan No. 06/2006-07 which was in relation to digging and constructing village ponds. Petitioner as a Panchayat Sewak was entrusted with the job of getting the same done. Initially the petitioner was given an advance of Rs. 1,07,500/-. On an inspection being conducted, allegedly no work was found done. At the instance of the District Administration, an F.I.R. was lodged and petitioner was arrested for raising false claims. Junior Engineer of the said project was also made an accused. 2 In the counter affidavit, it is stated that immediately on the F.I.R. being lodged, the petitioner completed the work. The D.D.C., Kaimur then ordered the Director, District Rural Development Authority, Kaimur and the Executive Engineer of the said authority to make enquiry and submit a report within three days. That was in July, 2007. In Paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit, it is then clearly averred that the D.D.C., Kaimur having received the enquiry, measurement report of the work done, issued a letter in February, 2008 for needful action and release of a cheque for Rs. 2,86,500/- in favour of the petitioner for the work done. It is for payment of this cheque that the petitioner has come to this Court. The reason for the cheque not being handed over to the petitioner in spite of the fact that the quantum of work and the evaluation of work done has been now thoroughly verified is rather obscure. The D.D.C. by his letter as contained in Annexure-8 being letter dated 10.04.2008, now wants the Panchayat Sewak to submit proof of payment of wages before cheque is issued. This is a contradiction in plain and simple terms and most illegal and illogical demand when D.D.C. himself has withheld the payment, how does he expects the Panchayat Sewak to 3 have paid the wages for the work. The State itself withholds the payment to the Panchayat Sewak but expects the Panchayat Sewak to have made payments for the work from his own pocket and before receiving the payments. I am sure the D.D.C., Kaimur would appreciate the diachotomy and absurdness of the situation. Once it is found that the work to the extent as measured and calculated is done and that payment was due, there was nothing more to be done. Payment had to be made. After payments are made then the petitioner can be asked to satisfy the authorities that workers who had worked had been dully paid. It is this diabolical stand of the State that leads to corruption. From where is the Panchayat Sewak to manage such a huge amount of money for payment to workers before he receives money from the State. He is not a commercial contractor who invests his funds. He is a government servant and is not required to invest any fund of his own unless he is expected to make money otherwise than legally. It is the D.D.C. who is responsible for starting this chain of corruption by delaying payments. I, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that withholding back payments for such a long time 4 on this plea is wholly frivolous and only to cause harassment to the petitioner. I, therefore, direct that the cheque of Rs. 2,86,500/- be immediately handed over to the petitioner and the D.D.C. Kaimur would ensure that it is duly honored when presented for encashment within a period of one month from today. The writ petition with the aforesaid observations and directions stands disposed of. Shageer (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)