IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13854 of 2009 1. DEEPAK KUMAR SINGH S/O SRI RANDHIR PRASAD SINGH MOH- FORT AREA, P.S-KOTWALI, DISTT- MUNGER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, BISHWESHWARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILLEY ROAD, PATNA 3. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, BISHWESHWARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILLEY ROAD, PATNA 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (SOUTH) BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, PATNA 5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, BHAGALPUR 6. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT, BUILDING CIRCLE, BHAGALPUR 7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BUILDING DIVISION, MUNGER 8. THE ESTIMATING OFFICER BUILDING DIVISION, MUNGER 9. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER BUILDING DIVISION, MUNGER ----------- 03. 13.01.2010 Vide Annexure-9 dated 27.04.2009, based on the direction of the High Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8026 of 2005, the Liability Committee of the Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar examined the claim of the petitioner for payments of his outstanding dues with regard to four works carried out and completed by him between the years 2002-03 and 2003-04. So far as claim of the petitioner under the second head is concerned which is related to repair of the quarters of Judicial Officer’s, there is material to show that payment had been made to the petitioner and no dispute remains under the same head. With regard to the other nature of works, the reason for rejection of the claim of the petitioner is that from perusal of the MB Book, it emerges that 2 the work was completed in the year 2003-04 itself but the agreement has been entered in the year 2004-05. This according to the Liability Committee is against the rules or the procedure laid down in this regard. The Court fails to understand the reasoning provided by the Liability Committee in this regard because the Court is not unmindful of the fact that work do come to be awarded by State agencies and work is also completed within the time frame on many an occasions but many a reasons the actual process of agreement takes time and the formality many a times is completed at a subsequent stage. There is no dispute that there was assignment of work and work order was issued to the petitioner. The work has been carried out and completed within the time frame but merely because the respondent authorities took time to execute the agreement or it came to be executed on a subsequent date, the order assigned and work carried out does not become illegal. The agreement was only a paper formality to be carried out and which is largely in the hands of the respondents. In absence of any other cogent reason having been furnished by the Liability Committee, the reasoning assigned requires to be interfered. Annexure-9 dated 27.04.2009 is quashed. The writ application is allowed and the matter is relegated back to the authorities to work out the claim of the petitioner and take 3 steps for settlement of bills at the earliest. Shageer (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)