IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 8137 of 2007 Birendra Kumar, son of Janardan Poddar, resident of village - Madhepura P S - Madhepura, Dist - Madhepura - Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Bihar 2 Commissioner/Secretary, Rural Engineering Organization, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3 Joint Secretary, Rural Engineering Organization, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 4 Engineer-in-Cdhief/Special Secretary, Rural Engineering Organization, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 5 Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization, Works Division, Madhepura - Respondents ----------- 3 06.03.2009 The writ petition has been pending for over one and a half years and has also been adjourned for taking instructions and filing a comprehensive counter affidavit still the learned counsel for the State states that inspite of reminders, instructions are not being sent. Copy of earlier order of this Court was also given to the learned State Counsel for communication to the authorities a month back but inspite of that no instructions has been given nor any counter affidavit has been filed. Under the said circumstances, this Court is left with no option but to dispose of the writ petition on the basis of material and pleadings as available on record. The petitioner has stated that he had entered into a contract for certain road repair work being Agreement No 1F2 of 1997-1998 which was signed by the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization, Works Division, Madhepura. The work having been completed, the amount to be paid to the petitioner was verified and calculated. Annexure-3 series are series of letters written by the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization, Works Division, Madhepura 2 to the Engineer-in-Chief -cum- Deputy Secretary -cum- Deputy Commissioner -cum- Special Secretary of the Department for allocation of funds for payment of bills to the petitioner amounting to Rs 1,10,869/- but there has been no response. In view of the letters of the Executive Engineer, it is clear that the amount payable to the petitioner is not in dispute. The payment is not being made only because there is not sufficient fund allocation for payment of the same. In my view, the action of the State in not making payment for work already completed is arbitrary and payment cannot be withheld merely because fund allocation is not being made. Once work is completed, it is the liability of the State to discharge its part by making payment. I, therefore, direct the respondent-Engineer-in-Chief to see that proper fund allocations are made and payment of petitioner is made within this financial year itself as the matter has already got delayed for no fault of the petitioner. In case, payment is not made to the petitioner within this financial year then the same would be made alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per year from the time it was due till the time it is paid. The liability to pay interest would then be ascertained and fixed to the officer responsible for delay and shall be ultimately recoverable from such officer as may be found responsible for the delay. With this direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)