Judgment 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is a labour, who has undertaken execution of contract work as mentioned in the writ petition. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that work having been done, requisition for payment was having made but payment could not be made in absence of adequate fund allocation. From the correspondence annexed to the writ petition it is clear that at the earliest in time the authority admitted that work was done and payment was due. Having got tired of pursuing the matter this writ petition was filed. 3. During the pendency of this petition it appears that the claim of the petitioner was sent to the Liability Committee constituted by the Department to verify the claims, which had remained unpaid. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed wherein it has been admitted that the work was done in both the cases though it was completed after a delay of fifteen days or so. The Liability Committee also does not dispute that the work was done. What is said by it is that the Executive Engineer had not certified the measurement book and secondly that there being delay in completing the work no payment could be made. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties I am of the considered view that so far as the Executive Engineer not certifying the measurement book is concerned, that cannot be used as against the petitioner. It is not stated as to why the Executive Engineer did not certify the measurement book. Executive Engineer was not an employee of the petitioner and he was not in the control of the petitioner. Moreover, there are contemporaneous communication of the Executive Engineer himself to show that money was demanded for the work done by the petitioner, meaning thereby, he was also satisfied that the work had been done and payment was due and therefore, this stand of the State cannot be accepted. 6. Coming to the second contention that there was delay in executing the work, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the delay was about fifteen days only. Merely because there is delay in completing the work does not ipso facto give right to the person liable to make payment to forfeit the amount of payment that is due for the work done. Right to forfeit is a consequence of an agreement between the parties. Merely because there is delay in completing the work does not ipso facto give right to the person liable to make payment to forfeit the amount of payment that is due for the work done. Right to forfeit is a consequence of an agreement between the parties. If such a right is not prescribed in any agreement between the parties then such a right cannot be utilised much less by the State who are expected to act in non-arbitrary and non-discriminatory manner. No provision authorising the State to forfeit the amount payable to the petitioner merely on account of delay has been brought to my notice. 7. In that view of the matter I am left with no option but to direct that the amount, as pointed out, to be due in the contemporaneous communication and considered by the Liability Committee will have to be paid to the petitioner. Work having been done the contractor has to be compensated. The denial appears to be only a pretence of an accused to deny the legitimate payment for the work done. 8. Let direction be accordingly complied within two months from the date of production of a copy of this order before the respondent no. 5.