IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.W.J.C. No.4773 of 2010 Ajay Kumar S/O Late Bindeshwari Prasad Singh R/O Vill & P.O.Arma, P.S.Kajra, Distt-Lakhisarai 2. Bharat Bhushan Singh S/O Vijay Singh R/O Vill & P.O.Arma, P.S.Kajra, Distt-Lakhisarai 3. Vijay Lal S/O Kashi Lal R/O Vill & P.O.Arma, P.S.Kajra, Distt-Lakhisarai 4. Ajit Kumar Srivastava S/O Krishna Kumar Srivastava R/O Vill & P.O.Arma, P.S.Kajra, Distt-Lakhisarai 5. Sadan Prasad S/O Ramgulam Ram R/O Vill & P.O.Arma ,P.S.Kajra, Distt-Lakhisarai. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Lakhisarai 3. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Lakhisarai 4. The Civil Sub -Divisional Officer, Lakhisarai 5. The Block Programme Officer, National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, Block Surajgarha, P.S.Surajgarha, Distt-Lakhisarai 6. The Executive Engineer, District Rural Development Authority, Lakhisarai 7. The Assistant Engineer, National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme Block Surajgarha, Distt-Lakhisarai 8. The Junior Engineer, National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme , Block Surajgarha, Distt- Lakhisarai 9. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Arma, Under Surajgarha Block,P.S.Kajra, Distt-Lakhisarai 10. The Panchayat Rojgar Sewak, Gram Panchayat Raj Arma, National Employment Guarantee Scheme Under Surajgarha, Block, P.S.Kajra, Distt- Lakhisarai. ----------------- For the petitioners : Mr. Nasrul Hoda Khan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Sharma AC to SC-22 ------- 3. 05.8.2011. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. The writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondent authorities, more 2 particularly, the District Magistrate, Lakhisarai respondent no.2 and the Block Programme Officer, National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, Block Surajgarha, P.S. Surajgarha in the district of Lakhisasrai respondent no.5 to make payment of the wages of the petitioners under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the’ NAREGA). It is the case of the petitioners that on a public petition filed for excavation of Champapur Pokhar (chahbacha) a decision was taken to construct the same by the Gram Sabha of Gram Panchayat Raj, Arma, block Surajgarha in the district of Lakhisarai and scheme drawn up. An estimate was prepared by the Junior Engineer for execution of the work at a cost of Rs.2,79,600/-. The said proposal was forwarded by the Gram Panchayat for its approval by the respondent no.5 who gave his administrative approval for execution of the work of excavation of the aforesaid pond. It is the contention of the petitioners that after the completition of the work in question an actual estimate was drawn and determined at Rs.2,78,961/- and out of which an 3 amount of Rs.1,42,157/- was paid to the petitioners vide cheque dated 15.6.2009 as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition. It is submitted that the balance amount of Rs.1,26,384/- admissible to the petitioners who have worked under the Scheme is still pending before the respondent no.5 for which funds have to be routed through the respondent no.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying on a communication of the Deputy Development Commissioner, Lakhisarai addressed to the Mukhiya, Arma Gram Panchayat, submits that despite the recommendation being made by the Deputy Development Commissioner for release of the balance amount for payment of the wages to the petitioners, the same has not yet been released. Considering the nature of grievance raised in the writ petition, this court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in keeping this matter pending. The writ petition is thus disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh representation before the respondent no.2 the District Magistrate raising their grievance together with supportive details and which shall be 4 considered and disposed of by reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Needless to add that if the petitioners are found entitled to the wages as claimed by them, the same should be paid to them within the same period. However, if the claim of the petitioners is not found justified, the same shall be disposed of by a reasoned order, also to be passed within the same period. ahk (Jyoti Saran, J.)