IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3217 of 2008 HEMANT KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 03 14.08.2008 The petitioner was appointed, pursuant to selection made by the District Health Society, Nalanda for providing certain services at the Health Centers run by the State Government including the Sadar Hospital. These relate to inter alia providing backup electricity, cleanliness and food to patients. The petitioner was required to submit monthly bills and as such was required to be paid on that basis. Regrettably, as is usual for reasons which this Court cannot discuss, even though, the performance of petitioner was satisfactory and bills were submitted on time they were not so paid. Even though, the respondents i.e. the District Health Society insisted on giving timely, prompt and efficient service, when it comes to discharging its obligations on making payment which is due to the persons like petitioner it takes its sweet time and has to be awaken up by forcing the service provider to come to this Court pointing to the arbitrary action on part of the respondents. If services are to be provided month to month then law enshrines a duty on the respondents to pay promptly month by month. This is a reciprocal legal obligation. Respondents cannot insist on work to be performed with a promise to pay later. The promise is simultaneous and if for non payment of bills, the service provider stops the service, he cannot - 2 - be faulted and no action can be taken against him for the same, this authorities must realize. A counter affidavit has been filed, in which, it is admitted that monthly bills were duly submitted by the petitioner and it is submitted as if the respondents including the Civil Surgeon-cum- Chief Medical Officer was doing an obligation and favour by paying the said amount, that amounts have been duly paid. The unashamed manner in which such statement is made is writ large from the fact that the bills are paid after almost a year with no bona fide excuse and that too only after the petitioner moved this Court and during pendency of the writ petition. The actions of the respondents in delaying payment is reprehensible. It may be noted that in future if there is any inordinate delay in settlement of bills Court would consider awarding penal interest for delay and the same to be recovered from person causing the delay. As payments have already been made and accepted by the petitioner during pendency of this writ petition, this writ petition has become in fructuous. Let a copy of this order be given to learned State counsel. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J.)