IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14387 of 2010 1. Suresh Prasad Singh, S/o Shree Saryug Singh resident of Mohalla Karyanand Nagar Lakhisarai, P.S. & District Lakhisarai 2. Kamal Nayan Singh, S/o Shree Ram Naresh Singh, resident of Dhiradar, Police Station Barahiya, district Lakhisarai 3. Mukesh Kumar, son of shree Ramchandra Singh resident of Kumar, Police Station Sikandara, District Jamui 4. Sidheshwar Prasad, son of Shree Prasadi Mahto resident of Simeriya, Vikrampur, Police Station & District Jamui 5. Shiv Kumar Son of Late Sukhdev Singh, resident of Dakra, Police Station & District Lakhisarai Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Bihar Education Project Council through its Director, Bihar Education Project Council, Beltron Bhawan, Shastri Nagar, Patna- 1 3. The Director, Bihar Education Project Council, Beltron Bhawan, Shastri Nagar, Patna-1 4. The District Magistrate-cum- Chairman, Bihar Education Project, Lakhisarai, District Lakhisarai 5. The District Superintendent of Education cum District Programm coordinator, Bihar Education Project, Lakhisarai, District Lakhisarai ----------- 02/ 06.09.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner, State and Respondents 2 and 3, the authorities of the Bihar Education Project. 2. Petitioners were engaged to serve as Technical Supervisor in execution of different scheme by the Bihar Education Project on payment of honorarium up to 2.5% of the estimated project cost as is evident from the order contained in letter no. 1536 dated 22.8.2005, 2 Annexure-2 issued in the case of petitioner no.4. The engagement order of other petitioners has not been placed on record as the same has not been served on the petitioners. 3. This writ application has been filed praying, inter alia, to direct the Respondent nos. 4 and 5 to pay the arrears of honorarium due to the petitioners in the light of their claim contained in Annexure-7 series on the ground that the contractors who were entrusted with the execution of the civil works have not only completed the civil works, but also have been paid after the work was found satisfactory by Respondent nos. 4 and 5. Petitioners having assisted the Contractors by rendering supervision for successful completion of the works are also required to be paid their honorarium as without their assistance and supervision execution of civil works by the contractors was not possible. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that amount due to the petitioners, as is evident from Annexures-7 series, is being withheld without there being any valid reason for such non-payment, highlighting such fact petitioner nos. 1 and 3 along with others have already 3 filed their representation before the Collector, Lakhisarai on 17.5.2008, copy whereof is contained in Annexure-4 to this application. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties, I direct the petitioners to file fresh representation annexing a copy of this order requesting the Collector, Lakhisarai to release the amount of honorarium due to the petitioner as is found incorporated in the agreement for the works which the petitioners have supervised during execution, as early as possible, in any case within 60 days from the date of receipt of the representation along with this order. In case the Collector, Lakhisarai is not inclined to release payment, he shall pass a speaking order indicating the reasons as to why he is not paying the amount of honorarium to the petitioners. 6. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Arjun/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)