Order It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner's Firm, namely, M/s Gurdit Mal & Sons under an agreement dated 27.9.1972 was awarded with a work of excavation of Central Trench of Bhawnathpur Lime Stone Mines Project for deposit the spoil in dump sites and also sizing, carting and loading the useful lime stone in Railway Wagon at Bhawnathpur Railway siding. 2. The petitioner in terms of the agreement executed the entire work by 5.9.1974 under the supervision and guidance of the concerned officials of the Respondents Company. As per terms of the agreement, petitioner's Firm was required to deposit 15% of the security amount initially and remaining security money was to be deducted out of running bills and as such the respondents realized total amount of Rs. 1,77,401/- towards security deposit. After completion of the work, the respondents did not take steps for preparation of the final bills and also withheld certain amount towards security deposit without any reasonable cause and hence several requests were made to release the balance amount of security deposit and also to make payment of final bills, but when nothing was done, a legal notice to that effect was given on 12.10.1977 and on receipt of the said notice, the respondents informed that the matter relating to the said agreement is under scrutiny of the Vigilance Department, as some overpayment seems to have been taken by the petitioner's Firm. After sometime, the respondents lodged a criminal case vide Vigilance P.S. Case No. 8(10) of 1975 against the petitioner which, on being challenged before this Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 1268 of 1986(R), was quashed by this Court on 11.9.1986. Before that, the respondents had also brought a money suit bearing No. 19 of 1978 before 2nd Sub-Judge, Dhanbad and when the case lodged against the petitioner's Firm was quashed, the petitioner again put forth demand of his dues and thereupon the respondents through their lawyer informed that a sum of Rs. 2,17,194/ - payable under the agreement has been adjusted towards claim of the money which has been sought to be decreed against the petitioner in the money suit. 3. Being aggrieved with such action of the respondents, the petitioner moved this Court vide W.P.(C) No. 644 of 2005 raising grievance of withholding of the legal dues by the respondents. 4. 2,17,194/ - payable under the agreement has been adjusted towards claim of the money which has been sought to be decreed against the petitioner in the money suit. 3. Being aggrieved with such action of the respondents, the petitioner moved this Court vide W.P.(C) No. 644 of 2005 raising grievance of withholding of the legal dues by the respondents. 4. In course of hearing, it was noticed by the Court that the suit brought by the respondents has been dismissed and as such the writ application was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to dispose of the representation if filed by the petitioner within two months from the date of filing of the said representation and thereupon the petitioner in terms of the order of this Court filed a detailed representation before the respondents-Authority for release of the legal dues to the petitioner, but the respondents in utter disregard of the order passed by this Court sat tight over the matter and thus the petitioner finding no way out has again moved this Court for a direction to the respondents to pay legal dues which is admissible to the petitioner with interest. 5. The stand of the respondents, as has been taken in the counter affidavit, is that against the order dismissing the suit, the respondents have brought Misc. (Judl.) Case No. 1 of 2007 for restoration of the money suit bearing No. 98 of 1978, which is still pending and as such as long as the petitioner's misc. case is pending, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The respondents in the counter affidavit also seems to have raised point relating to propriety of the order under which money suit was dismissed but that point is not at all the material for disposal of the writ application. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, I do find that the admitted position is that a sum of Rs. 2,17,194/- is payable to the petitioner, as the said amount, according to the respondents, has been adjusted towards money claim, which was sought to be decreed but the money suit has already been dismissed, though one application for restoration of the said money suit is pending. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel it appropriate to direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel it appropriate to direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 2,17,194/- to the petitioner within two months on filing indemnity bond of the said amount but at the same time, said payment would be subject to final adjudication of the claim. However, any payment made shall not be prejudicial to the claim of the parties. 7. With this observation and direction, this writ application stands disposed of.