IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1374 of 2007 Lalan Prasad son of Late Munshi Prasad resident of village Rampur, P.O. Akairh, P.S. Chandi, District- Nalanda. …………. Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Road Construction Department, State of Bihar, Patna. 2. Engineer-in-chief-cum-Special Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Chief Engineer (Transport) South Bihar Upbhag Path Nirman Department, Bihar, Patna. 4. Superintending Engineer, South Bihar Circle, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna. 5. Executive Engineer, Road Construction Division, Biharsharif, Nalanda. …………….Respondents. ----------- 03 28.11.2008 The petitioner states that a reference to Annexure-6, being letter dated 25.10.2002, would show that the Executive Engineer submitted all papers to the Engineer-in-Chief for payment of petitioner’s bill but thereafter only a part payment of small amount was made to the petitioner and nothing further has been paid. The petitioner’s claim for payment of work done under agreement no. 30 F-2/1998-99 has been rejected by Engineer-in-Chief by an innocuous order, as contained in Annexure-A/1 dated 20.09.2007. The grounds given have nothing to do with any fault on part of the petitioner. In the counter affidavit or in the said order (Annexure- A/1) it is not even whispered that the petitioner had not done the work. On the contrary, it is stated that advertisement was not properly made, to which petitioner has said that it is pursuant to the same very advertisement other contractors for other works were even paid without demur but petitioner discriminated. Then, it is said that there was delay 2 in getting the agreement executed. To this petitioner submits that it is not his fault and as an agreement had been executed that cannot be made the ground for denying payment for work done. It is then said that the measurement book did not bear the signature of the Executive Engineer. This is again not the fault of the petitioner. Petitioner in the rejoinder has specifically asserted that the then Executive Engineer has duly signed the measurement book and his initials are there. More over the measurement book is to be maintained by State and not petitioner. It is then said that the bills that were forwarded for payment are not endorsed by the Executive Engineer. Petitioner submits that it is an interdepartmental matter, petitioner has no concern with it. There are no valid grounds nor was any material brought on record that would lead to denying payment to the petitioner. In my view, the contentions as raised by the petitioner can only be accepted as they are in accordance with law. It stands admitted that work was done because there was advertisement, there was agreement and bills had been prepared by the department and forwarded on basis of measurement book. There is not a whisper in the counter affidavit that work was not done. As work was done, petitioner cannot be denied payment, because that would be unjust and would amount unjust enrichment on behalf of the State. Work having been done, petitioner is entitled to compensation for the value of work done in terms of the cost as estimated in the bills. All that is alleged is that State Officials did not perform their duty as required but not that work was not done. What is being 3 sought to be done in that for the fault of State Officials, with which the petitioner is not concerned, the petitioner is being punished. State gets the work done but denies payment for it. This is impermissible. I therefore set aside the order of the Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna dated 20.09.2007 and direct him to reconsider the matter in view of the observations as noted above and in accordance with law and pass a fresh order within one month of production of a copy of this order before him. In case any amount is found due and payable the same is to be made within two months to the petitioner and in case any payment is found not due the petitioner he would be supplied with a reasoned order for that. It may be pointed out that if the authorities find that the Officials had not followed proper government instructions then the Engineer-in-Chief, to establish bona fide of their stand, would be required to start departmental proceedings against the Officials. In case, payment if any due is not made within two months from the date the order is presented before the Engineer-in- Chief the same should be paid with interest of 6 % per annum from the date it was due. With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Trivedi/ ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)