IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.31 of 2005 M/S KAMAL BRICKS MANUFACTURERS PROPRITOR represented by Roshan Lal s/o late Mal r/0 Sipahi Tola,P.S. K.Hat,District-Purnea. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR . 2. The Commissioner cum Secretary, Road Construction Department,Biahr,Patna. 3. The Engineer in Chief cum Special Secretary, Road Construction Deptt.,Bihar,Patna. 4. Chief Engineer, Traffic, North Bihar Division, Road Construction Department,Darbhanga. 5. Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Circle,Purnea. 6. Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division,Purnea. ----------- 2 19.12.2008 Petitioner’s claim for payment in relation to work done, which was earlier recommended for payment, has now been rejected by the Liability Committee, as per their report appended as Annexure A to the counter affidavit, dated 10.7.2006, which has been forwarded to the petitioner as well. The ground for rejection of the claim is not that no work was done or there was any fault in the work done but on the ground that various departmental circulars and guidelines were not followed in allocation of the work or at different stages of the work. Virtually what this Court is being told is that because some officers of the State faulted in their duty, the petitioner will not be paid his due. I am surprised on this stand in a democratic State governed by rule of law. Petitioner is to suffer not because of his fault but because of fault of State. There would not be greater absurd stand. It is a mere pretence of an excuse to deny the payment. As has been held by different Courts in different time that the State must act fairly even in contractual matter. Thus, the report of the Liability Committee is 2 rejected out right. The respondents are directed to enquire into the extent of work done and make payment of legitimate due. In case they find that some or the other officials have failed to discharge their duty, action may be taken against the officials but surely no system of law authorizes the State to punish the petitioner for fault of State’s own officials . The Liability Committee is thus directed to examine the work and the paper in that regard and pass an appropriate order. I may only notice that in the counter affidavit some instances of irregularity are given, one of them is that the final bill is not signed by the Executive Engineer. For this irregularity ,State may proceed against the Executive Engineer but cannot punish the petitioner by depriving him of his payment because the very fact that bills were prepared and forwarded to the Executive Engineer clearly admit, work having been done and verified. If such pleas are permitted it would put premium on inefficient officers. Let a copy of this order be given to learned counsel for the State. The Liability Committee would take a decision in the matter within one month from the date of production of a copy of this order before the concerned Chief Engineer. This disposes of the writ petition. SINGH (Navaniti Pd. Singh, J.)