JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner wants payment of a sum of Rs. 20,23,270/-, the balance amount of the so-called sanctioned claim of the petitioner under the head of escalation price of cement and steel for the contract work in question, which was for construction of 75 bedded Hospital at Rajauli, Nawada. The agreement was entered into on 2.11.2006. The time for completion of the said project was 2.5.2008 but for some reason, not necessary to be noted here, this time was extended by respondents to 31.7.2009. These aspects are not in dispute. 3. After completion of the work petitioner raised bill for payment and he also lodged a claim for due compensation for escalation of price of cement and steel in terms of resolution of the Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, which is dated 17.7.2008 and is Annexure-2 to the writ application. 4. There is some material to show that the bill presented by the petitioner was acted upon by the subordinate and recommendations have been made but ultimately it came to be rejected at the level of the Chief Engineer on the ground that no escalation of price under the heads claimed in the bill shall be paid for subsistence of the contract. This has become the subject matter of challenge in the present writ application. 5. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of Clauses 4 and 5 of Annexure-2 the contract in question was subsisting and it was an on going-on. In the above event, the condition of above clauses was fulfilled he had a right to claim enhanced price for cement and steel in terms of the resolution of the State Government. Now the respondents are illegally and arbitrarily denying payment of Rs. 20,23,270/- which is yet to be settled. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the claim of the petitioner is totally misplaced and is not in consonance with the circular, contained in Annexure-2. The petitioner has been given the benefit of escalation in price of cement and steel from the date the resolution in question became effective i.e. 17.7.2008 till completion of the project on 31.7.2009, which was extended time granted by the respondents. The petitioner has been given the benefit of escalation in price of cement and steel from the date the resolution in question became effective i.e. 17.7.2008 till completion of the project on 31.7.2009, which was extended time granted by the respondents. The benefit has to accrue for this period and not from the origin of the contract or when the agreement was made. 7. This Court is in agreement with the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents because the benefit if at all, must accrue only from the date of circular and that too for the extended period of work or else it will beget unfair or undue advantage to the petitioner, despite him being assigned the contract on the rate offered by him initially. It is not the object of the circular or the Clauses 4 and 5 to provide hidden costs to the petitioner on the rate quoted by him for the work. 8. There is no merit in the writ application which is accordingly dismissed.