IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14036 of 2007 SIDDH NATH SINGH son of Shri Dinesh Lal Singh, resident of Mohalla- Krishnatoli, Brahampura, Road no.4, P.S. Brahampura,District- Muzaffarpur. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Chief Engineer, Bihar Public Works Department(North Bihar Division),Patna,Bihar. 3. The Superintending Engineer,Building Circle,Muzaffarpur. 4. Executive Engineer,Works Division,Muzaffarpur. ----------- 2 19.12.2008 Petitioner alleges that he was required to do some repair work of public building pursuant to order placed with him .He did the work and submitted his bills. Those bills were duly forwarded by the Executive Engineer,Building Department,Muzaffarpur. For one reason or the other, undisclosed, payments were not made and as such this writ petition was filed. It appears that during the pendency of the writ petition, the claim of the petitioner was referred to Liability Committee consisting of the Chief Engineer, Superintending Engineer and the Executive Engineer. In the counter affidavit, the report of the Liability Committee has been appended as Annexure A. The report is a short face saving report and is based on paper enquiry alone. In substance what the report says is that while placing the order, various rules and regulations were not followed and as such the claim of the petitioner was not entertain able. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that there appears to be - 2 - connivance between the Executive Engineer and the petitioner and hence the Department is not obliged to accept such law created in violation of government’s rule and instruction. What is not disputed in the counter affidavit is that the petitioner did the work. That stands admitted. The law of this Court is that if a person is asked to do some public work for public benefit and once he does the work, he has to be duly compensated for no work is gratuitous. If the stand of State is to be accepted, it would only put up premium on any intra department irregularity being committed, the cost has to be borne by 3rd party not concerned. There being no dispute that the petitioner did the work, he has to be compensated by the State. It was no personal work of any particular officer or for gain of any particular officer. It was public work for public gain. It would be traversed just to deny the compensation of petitioner. It would only amount to this Court adding in making unjust treatment causing loss to contractor for fault of their own officer. Thus having found State liable to make payment, the matter does not end there. Once payments ,as compensation, are made to the petitioner, State would be obliged to enquire into irregularity committed by its officers and recover the said amount in full to the extent found desirable from their officers. They have to be held accountable and responsible but surely that cannot deny the compensation to the petitioner for public purpose has been made to suffer. I thus direct that the work done be assessed, quantified and payment made within one month from the date of production of a copy of this order before the concerned - 3 - Superintending Engineer. With the above observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. singh (Navaniti Pd. Singh,J)