ORDER 1. The Prime Minister of India was to visit Nirmali in the State of Bihar. Some month later President of India was to visit Harnaut in the State of Bihar. For both places, East Central Railway had to get several works done for the visit of VVIP dignitaries. 2. Pursuant to tender inviting, petitioner filed his tender for works for both the places in relation to making, supplying and fixing of brass letter (gold plated), which was to be put up at both the places. His tenders were accepted and works assigned, as per acceptance letters dated 15.3.2004 and 22.3.2004, as contained in Annexures 1 and 2 respectively. Works having been satisfactorily done. Petitioner started running for payment and when in spite of reminder payment was not made, he approached this Court by the present writ petition. In the writ petition, it was categorically stated that the works having been duly executed, bills were duly passed on 31.3.2004 itself. Petitioner has then annexed the Circular issued by the Railway wherein it has been stated that so far as payment for works in excess of Rs. 5 lakh they should ordinarily be processed and paid within 21 days and for payment below Rs. 5 lakh they should be processed and paid within 3 days. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, it was over three years petitioner was running and was not paid. Petitioner has categorically stated in the writ petition that several others persons, who for the same visit of high dignitaries had done various works, had already been paid but for some extraneous reason, petitioner was left out. On these pleadings the writ petition was filed claiming payment. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent sworn by Deputy Chief Engineer, Ganga Bridge, East Central Railway, Digha Ghat, Patna with only averment that the authority examined the matter and after taking due approval prepared two cheques for the two works. For payment admitted dues to the petitioner, cheques have already been handed over to the petitioner, copy of the two cheques dated 22.2.2008 and receipt of the petitioner dated 25.2.2008 have been appended. Normally, they should have ended the litigation but as there is neither denial of the facts as alleged nor any explanation offered for their delay, the Court is persuaded to make certain observation and orders. 4. Normally, they should have ended the litigation but as there is neither denial of the facts as alleged nor any explanation offered for their delay, the Court is persuaded to make certain observation and orders. 4. As admittedly there has been an inordinate delay i.e. instead of payment being given within three days, it has taken almost four years and intervention of this Court to get the payment, the petitioner is liable to be compensated with interest for the delay. The principal amount having been paid, the respondents are held liable to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum for the for years delay from the time payment was due to the time payment was made. The said amount of interest by one composite cheque would be handed over to the petitioner within one month from today. It would be open to the authority to recover the said amount of interest from the person found responsible for the delay, who should be identified after enquiry. Such matter requires deeper consideration and proper action at proper level. 5. Let a copy of this order be sent to Member (Vigilance) Railway Board, New Delhi for information and further action. 6. With these observations and directions, this writ petition stands allowed. 7. Let a copy of this order be given to learned counsel for the Railway.