WP(C) 2952/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. L.R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as M s. Deka, learned standing counsel for the respondents. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition i s taken up for disposal at the motion stage itself. The petitioner by the present petition has prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to release the amount of Rs.4,57,074/- due and payable t o him for the works done contending inter alia that though pursuant to various w ork orders issued in the year 2007, he completed the works and the aforesaid amo unt is still due and payable, the same has not been paid. It is also the content ion of the petitioner that a direction may also be issued to the respondent auth orities to release the said amount immediately, as the petitioner requires the f und for taking treatment outside the State. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on the backdrop of suc h assertion, has submitted that the direction may be issued to the respondents t o release the said amount forthwith. Ms. Deka, learned standing counsel, PWD, on the other hand, has submitte d that the matter relating to the payment of outstanding amount to the Contracto rs has already been decided by a Full Bench of this Court in Tamsher Ali & ors. Vs. State of Assam & ors. reported in 2008(4) GLT 1 and accordingly the present writ petition may be disposed of with the directions contained in the said judgm ent. It is also contended that the petitioner has not produced any document abou t his illness as well as advising to take treatment in any hospital outside the State and hence no special consideration can be made in favour of the petitioner . The petitioner claims that the amount of Rs.4,57,074/- is still due and payable for the works done by him pursuant to the various work orders issued. Th e issue relating to the payment of outstanding amount to the Contractors has alr eady been answered by a Full Bench of this Court in Tamsher Ali (supra). The pet itioner though in the present petition has contended that he being a heart patie nt requires treatment outside the State, he has not produced any document relati ng to his treatment in support of such contention. The petitioner, therefore, do es not deserve any special consideration. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of by direct ing the State respondents to verify the claim of the petitioner and upon such ve rification, if any amount is found due and payable, his name shall then be regis tered in the register maintained by the department and in terms of the direction s contained in Tamsher Ali’s case. The petitioner shall be paid in terms of the position in such register. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.