Judgment Navaniti Prasad Singh, J. 1. Heard the parties, State has filed a counter affidavit and a supplementary counter affidavit. 2. The petitioner is a contractor and was carrying out some work on Jehanabad-Arwal State High way. It appears that some part of the road in vicinity to the worksite got damaged due to floods causing a total disruption in traffic. Being an important road the Engineers immediately decided to get the same repaired to restore the traffic. As petitioner was working near the site of that damaged road and considering the urgency of the work, the petitioner was asked to carry out the said repair. The Superintending Engineer, Road Constructions Department, Magadh Circle, Gaya sanctioned the repair work allotted to the petitioner at Rs. 2,45.694.00 . It is clear from Annexure-6 that the cost of the work was sanctioned by the Superintending Engineer. From Annexure-7, it is clear that it is the petitioner who was assigned the work by the Executive Engineer and the Executive Engineer, by Annexure-8 notified, that the work had been satisfactorily completed but the post facto approval was still awaited. From the aforesaid facts, it would be seen that it is at the request of State officials that the petitioner undertook to make emergent repair to public highway. It is also not in dispute that repair work was duly carried out. It is also not in dispute that the cost of the work was termed and sanctioned by the Superintending Engineer. When necessary fund allocation for payment to the petitioner was not being made, the petitioner made several representations and getting no favourable response, came to this Court. This writ application was filed in the year 2004. It appears as a consequence of the writ application being filed, the State woke up and as is usually done, referred the matter to the "Liability Committee" constituted by it. The Liability Committee then examined the matter in 2006 that is almost eleven years after road repair work had been done. The decision of the Liability Committee, as contained in the communication of Deputy Secretary, is contained in annexure-A to the counter affidavit. A reference to Annexure-A would show that it is not in dispute that it has not been disputed that work was not done. The decision of the Liability Committee, as contained in the communication of Deputy Secretary, is contained in annexure-A to the counter affidavit. A reference to Annexure-A would show that it is not in dispute that it has not been disputed that work was not done. Only reason for rejection of the claim of the petitioner is that before allotting the work to the petitioner, no advertisement was issued or tenders invited. There was no order for the work nor was there any agreement for the work nor any authenticated measurement book for the work. In substance, the plea was that the work may have been done but the payment cannot be made as the officers of the State had not done their paper work. In the said communication, there was no reference to the letter sanctioning the amount of the Superintending Engineer, no reference to the communication of the Executive Engineer showing that the work was allotted to the petitioner and that he had executed the same satisfactory within time and was required to be paid. It is, in that view of the matter, that this Court passed the order dated 7-9-2006: As pointed out by Sri Tekriwal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State that the counter affidavit was ready but could not be filed because of change of Government counsel. As per this Courts order dated 19-8-2006 imposing cost is recalled. Let the case be listed after two weeks retaining its position to enable counsel for the State to file a comprehensive counter-affidavit reverting to Annexures-6, 7 and 8 as also whether any action is proposed against the State officials who wrongly and unauthorisedly, took work. 3. Today a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed. With specific reference to Annexures-7 and 8, it is stated that the contents thereof are not disputed. The effect of this admission by the State is that it remains undisputed or in other words admitted that the Superintending Engineer had sanctioned the estimated cost of the work. Further, that the work was allotted and done by the petitioner, from this, it follows that petitioner had performed his part and what remained was the part on behalf of State Government. Further, that the work was allotted and done by the petitioner, from this, it follows that petitioner had performed his part and what remained was the part on behalf of State Government. In the supplementary counter affidavit while not being disputing the aforesaid fact, it is now said that as no formal agreement was entered into no formal work order issued, payment cannot be made to the petitioner. To my mind, it is a pretence of an excuse to deny legitimate payment of the petitioner. Had the respondents disputed the work, it would be another matter? They have chosen not to dispute the work rather they have accepted that the work was done. The question then is firstly whether for the fault of officers of the State can the citizen suffer and secondly what is the consequence of the actions or inactions of the State? 4. To my mind, the first submission of the learned Counsel for the State is that my officers defaulted and, as such, the petitioner has lost his right to receive payment. To this, my answer cannot be better than what Chief Justice Chagla said in the case of All-India Groundnut Syndicate Ltd. V/s. Commr. of Income Tax, Bombay City since reported in - : But the most surprising contention is put forward by the Department that because their own officer failed to discharge his statutory duty, the assessee is deprived of his right which the law has given to him under Sub-sec. (2) of sec. 24. In other words, Department wants to benefit from and wants to take advantage of its own default; It ts ah elementary principle of law that no person we take it that Income-tax Department is included in that definition-can put forward his own default in defence to a right asserted by the other party. A person cannot say. that the party claiming the right is deprived of that right because "I have committed a default and the right is lost because of that default. 5. In that view of the matter, it must be held that as the work was done for the Government and for the benefit of public, the petitioner is entitled to payment. 6. In this connection, I may also refer to sec. 73 of the Contract Act, relevant portion whereof is quoted hereunder: Compensation for failure to discharge obligation resembling those created by contract. 6. In this connection, I may also refer to sec. 73 of the Contract Act, relevant portion whereof is quoted hereunder: Compensation for failure to discharge obligation resembling those created by contract. - When an obligation resembling those created by contract has been incurred and has not been discharged, any person injured by the failure to discharge it is entitled to receive the same compensation from the party in default, as if such person had contracted to discharge it and had broken his contract. Explanation. - In estimating the loss or damage arising from a breach of contract, the means which existed of remedying the inconvenience caused by non-performance of the contract must be taken into account. 7. It will, thus, be seen that statutorily also that (sic) is recognized that where there is no contract in the strict sense of term but still a party has performed a part of the contract, the other party cannot escape saying there was no contract. Here, the petitioner, admittedly, performed his part of the work and the State cannot, thus, escape leaving the petitioner high and dry. The State must compensate the petitioner. The question then is what is the measure of compensation. The measure of compensation, as has been held in several decisions under the said provision, would be the estimate value of the work, as arrived between the parties. In the present case, the estimate has been duly sanctioned by the Superintending Engineer as is evident from Annexure-6 which is not disputed by the State. Recommendation for making payment to that extent by Annexure-7 is not disputed. In that view of the matter, there cannot be any dispute that that is the compensation to which the petitioner would be entitled to. I, accordingly, direct that the amount as sanctioned and recommended for payment as also noticed by the Claims Committee is to be paid to the petitioner for the work done. 8. Before parting, I may like to observe two things. The manner in which the Claims Committee is functioning, this Court is constrained to hold that it is clearly a colourable exercise of power if there be any. The Claims Committee appears to have been constituted only to find reasons for denial of liability. 8. Before parting, I may like to observe two things. The manner in which the Claims Committee is functioning, this Court is constrained to hold that it is clearly a colourable exercise of power if there be any. The Claims Committee appears to have been constituted only to find reasons for denial of liability. In a democratic: Government, this is least expected, it is well settled that the State cannot deny or should not deny the legitimate claim of petitioner and forced them to get into litigation. If work was done then notwithstanding technicalities, payment has to foe made, for no, work is gratuitous. Admittedly, these works were not done for the Superintending Engineer or the Executive Engineer personally. They were work of public nature for public benefit. Secondly, whenever the Claims Committee finds fault with its officers and uses that as a tool to disentitle the contractors of their payment, the Claims Committee would be duty bound to recommend departmental proceedings/criminal proceedings against their erring officer. It cannot be a one way attack. On one hand; you found your officers to be in default and use them to deny legitimate payments to contractors and then take no action against your officials. In such a situation if no action is taken against the officials, it only goes to show that the excuse is Only a pretence of execuse and not a bona fide execuse. In the present case also, from the order of this Court, as referred to above, it would be seen that this Court wanted to be enlightened as to what action would be proposed against erring officers. There is no affidavit in this regard. The State Counsel fairly concedes that action has been taken. This is travesty of justice. Another thing that I would like to point out is that it is not disputed that the work was done and completed in the year 1995 itself. In none of the affidavits filed by the State, any explanation has been given as to why a decision to pay or not to pay was not taken immediately. What was done for the last eleven years is not known, the Court ran only draw an inference that the authorities were waiting for the petitioner to move before they would be in a position to discharge their duty. What was done for the last eleven years is not known, the Court ran only draw an inference that the authorities were waiting for the petitioner to move before they would be in a position to discharge their duty. This is a wholly unsatisfactory situation which undoubtedly would lead to methods being adopted which are not countenanced by the Constitution. 9. In the result,, this writ application is allowed and the respondents are directed to forthwith make allocation of funds for payment to the petitioners due along with interest at the rate of 6% from 1995 till payment is made. The order shall be punctually complied within one month from today. 10. A copy of this order may be given to the learned State Counsel for its communication to the responsible of the State.