IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16941 of 2007 ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA S/O LATE BADRI PRASAD SAH, RESIDENT OF MORIPUR CHAWK, P.S. KAZI MOHAMMADPUR, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR. Versus 1. THE DIVIVISONAL RAIL MANAGER(EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY), SAMASTIPUR. 2. DIVISIONAL ENGINEER II, EASTERN CENTRAL RAIL, SAMASTIPUR. 3. DIVISIONAL RAIL MANAGER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY SAMASTIPUR. 4. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, NORTHERN RAILWAY(CIVIL), EASTERN RAIL, MUZAFFARPUR. 5. INSPECTION OFFICER WORK, MOTIHARI RAILWAY STATION. ----------- 6. 25.1.2010. This writ application has been filed for payment of amount of Rs.,14,14,314/. Stand of the petitioner is that the work has been completed by him within the extended period of contract, but despite the said completion of work, petitioner is not being paid the claim made on the railways. The reason for claiming that additional amount is that the extended period of work also pushed up the price of essential commodities and the petitioner is therefore entitled for the benefit of price variation from the original contract which was entered in the year 2002 till the period of completion of the said contract. Another grievance is that N.S.C. which was deposited by the petitioner for procuring the contract - 2 - has also not been refunded by the railways. Stand of the railways however is that all payments have been made to the petitioner based on the original contact or agreement entered between the parties. Certain amount of escalations have already been adjusted and the figure worked out was Rs.2658630/-. The revised face value of the contract therefore met the revision the period the contract was extended. The work had been completed on the extended term of the agreement by the petitioner and there is no clause by virtue of which petitioner could be given the benefit of price variation. In absence of any provisions even in the geneal conditions of contract, the petitioner cannot be given the benefit of the claim merely on his assertion. In absence of any clear pleadings and evidence in this regard, no directive can be issued in favour of the petitioner but if the clause exists in the agreement then petitioner may have to claim such benefit by getting the matter referred to an Arbitrator. No direction for revised payments for price - 3 - N.H./ escalation can be passed in the present writ application. The grievance of the petitioner about the refund of the deposited N.S.C. will have to be looked into by the respondents and some steps taken in this regard because from the pleadings, it is evident that the work or the contract has been completed and there is no dispute on this account. An early response in this regard preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order by the respondents is directed. This writ application is otherwise dismissed on the question of additional claim of Rs.14,14,314. ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)