IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.W.J.C. NO. 4135 OF 2007 GIRISH CHANDRA SINGH S/O SHRI DEV NANDAN SINGH, SECTOR – 6, M.I.G. – 134, HOUSING COLONY, BAHADURPUR, P. O. – LOHIYA NAGAR, PATNA – 800 020, P.S. – AGAMKUAN, TOWN AND DISTRICT – PATNA, BY OCCUPATION – RAILWAYS / GOVT. CONTRACTOR AND SUPPLIER ETC. ................................ PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH ITS DY. CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION) II, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT DANAPUR, P. O. – KHAGAUL, DISTRICT – PATNA 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION) SOUTH, MAHENDRU GHAT, PATNA. 3. THE DY. CHIEF ENGINEER HAVING ITS OFFICE AT DANAPUR, P. O. – KHAGAUL, DISTRICT – PATNA 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION), EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY DANAPUR, P. O. – KHAGAUL, DISTRICT – PATNA 5. THE ACCOUNT OFFICER, (CONSTRUCTION), EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY DANAPUR, P. O. – KHAGAUL, DISTRICT – PATNA 6. THE CHIEF ADMN. OFFICER (CONSTRUCTION) EASTERN RAILWAYS, KOLKATA 7. THE ASSISTANT CHIEF CASHIER (CONSTRUCTION) EASTERN RAILWAYS, KOLKATA. ................................ RESPONDENT / OPPOSITE PARTIES 3. 08.03.2010 The application of the petitioner was filed for a direction to the respondents for making payment of approximately six lacs, thirty two thousand and odd for the construction work carried out by him in terms of agreement dated 06.10.2004. The agreement in question is Annexure - 1 to the writ application. Subsequently, the work itself was ordered to be stopped, but the settlement of claim of the bills of the petitioner was not made for many a years. When the respondent authorities failed to accede to the request of the petitioner, the present writ application has been filed. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondent 2 Railways today. The stand is that the work had to be stopped because there was no adequate allotment of funds and the change in the decision relating to the work in question. Since, now, provision has been made in the budget and with some modification, the budget has been revised the respondents are in a position to take up the payment of the petitioner for making payments of the work done. Measurements have already been carried out. The estimate of work re-sanctioned in the current year is under preparation and the work carried out and executed by the petitioner has also been incorporated. The moment this exercise is over, the petitioner will be paid his dues. There seems to be some satisfactory explanation and reasons for non-payment of the petitioner. Those reasons were bonafide or not need not be commended upon by this Court, but in view of the accepted position in the counter affidavit. Now the respondent authorities will be well advised to complete the official formalities required in this regard, so that the payment of the petitioner can be expedited, since almost six years has elapsed since the contract was awarded to the petitioner and work was done. The writ application is disposed of with a direction that the respondent will settle the dues of the petitioner at the earliest without further delay. Skm (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) 3