WP(C) 4520/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY Heard Mr S Shyam, learned counsel for petitioners. Also, heard Mr J Patowary, le arned standing counsel for the public works department appearing for the respond ents. Grievance of the petitioners, in the present petition, is for non-paymen t of certain amounts which, according to the petitioners, are due and payable fo r the works done by them. It has been contended in writ petitions that though in the earlier writ proceeding initiated by the petitioners direction issued in Ta msher Ali -vs- State of Assam & ors, 2008(4) GLT 1, for payment of dues to the c ontractors was directed to be followed, that directions have not been followed b y the department in case of the present writ petitioners. Such assertion of the petitioners, however, has been denied by the respo ndent nos.1,2 & 3 by filing affidavit-in-opposition contending inter alia that t he directions issued in Tamsher Ali (supra) are being scrupulously followed and petitioners’ names were enlisted in the register maintained by the PWD for that purpose. It has also been contended that petitioners would be paid their dues, i n chronological order, as and when the fund is received from government. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in view of such stand taken by resp ondents in their affidavit-in-opposition, has submitted that the matter may be d isposed of with a direction to respondent authorities to pay, in chronological o rder, whatever the sum is found to be due and payable to the petitioners, as and when the fund is received from the government. In view of the aforesaid submission, these writ petitions are disposed o f with direction to the respondents, particularly Executive Engineer, PWD(Roads) to pay, in chronological order, that is as per their position at the register m aintained, whatever the sum is found to be due and payable to petitioners, as an d when the fund is received from the government. These writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs.