IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4256 of 2007 - --- ISHA MOHAMMAD ANSARI son of late AbdulRahman Ansari,Resident of Mohalla-Prabhat Colony, P.S. K Hat, District-Purnea. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Road Construction Department, Vishwaraiya Bhawan, New Secretariat,Patna, Bihar. 3. The Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum- Special Secretary, Road Construction Department, Visheshwaraiya Bhawan,Patna. 4. The Superintending Enginer, Road Construction Department,Road Circle,Purnewa. 5. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division,Purnea. ----------- For the Petritioner : Mr. Ramshankar Das For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, A.C. to G.A.1 - --- 2 13.2.2009 Petitioner claims payment for the work done. The work, in question, was ,inter alia, with regard to restoration of traffic on Amour- Bahadurganj road. The petitioner had come to this Court earlier when this Court directed the petitioner to make representation before the Secretary of the Department concerned. On representation being made, the Secretary of the Department concerned, considered the matter and has rejected the claim of the petitioner by his order, as contained in Annexure 8 to the counter affidavit. In my view, the order makes a poor reading. The import of the order is that the officer concerned, who gave the work, did not follow the official procedure and as such payment is not being made to the petitioner. In my view, the correct question that ought to have been foreseen by the Secretary was whether work of any public 2 nature was done or not. If it was done, then the Contractor cannot be denied payment on any technicality because it is well settled that State must not act only fairly but justly as no service is gratuitous. Having availed the service of the contractor, now on technicality payment cannot be denied as that would be unjust and inappropriate on the part of the State and would be paying premium on inefficiency and irregularity being committed by State officials. What the Secretary states is that because the officers of the State failed in their duty, the right of the petitioner to get the payment for the work done is lost. This stand is anti-fair- play and unreasonable. I, therefore, direct the Secretary to re-enquire into the matter. If, in fact, work was done by the petitioner of the nature, as alleged, then the petitioner must be paid. If any irregularity or illegality was committed by the officers of the State, then disciplinary action must be taken against those officers first but for fault of those officers, petitioner’s legitimate due cannot be denied. Let Secretary take appropriate action, as indicated above on both counts within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this order before the Secretary concerned. This disposes of the writ petition. Let a copy of this order be given to learned counsel for the State. SINGH (Navaniti Pd. Singh, J.)