Order Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Dispute in this writ application is to the non-payment of the dues to the petitioner towards the work executed by him under the contract with the respondents. 3. The contract work, apparently was executed by the petitioner sometime in the year 1999. Thereafter, the petitioner handed over the completed work to the concerned authorities of the respondents alongwith the bill for a sum of Rs. 3.75 lakhs. 4. By referring to the extracts of the office noting relating to the petitioner's claim for payment (Annexure-3), learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the fact that the petitioner had executed the work and that the amount claimed by the petitioner has been acknowledged, is amply reflected in the office notes which was forwarded by the Section Officer of the concerned Section and which was subsequently approved by the Senior Officer. The office noting indicate that though a part payment of the claim was made, but the entire amount could not be paid at that time, on account of paucity of fund during the financial year of that period and a decision was taken that the balance of amounts would be paid in the next budget. The petitioner was waiting patiently for payment of the balance of amounts, but the same was not paid. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ application before this Court, vide C.W.J.C. No. 4447 of 2000. The writ application was disposed of with a direction to the General Manager of the respondent-C.C.L. to consider the petitioner's case and to pay the admitted dues. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite such directions, the General Manager of the respondents-C.C.L. has not disposed of the claim of the petitioner in terms of the petitioner's claim and, therefore, the present writ application. 6. Per contra, the stand taken by the Respondent is that the instant writ application is misconceived and not maintainable. 7. Referring to the order dated 5.1.2001 passed by the Bench of this Court earlier, vide C.W.J.C. No. 4447 of 2000, learned counsel for the petitioner explains that in compliance with the order, the General Manager of the respondents-C.C.L. had considered the petitioner's claim and had found that against the extent of work which the petitioner had satisfactorily executed, a total sum of Rs. 1,91,000/ - was found payable to the petitioner and the same is duly sanctioned, released and paid to the petitioner, which the petitioner had received without any protest or whatsoever. 8. As regards the petitioner's claim on the basis of the office noting, learned counsel explains that mere office notings in itself would not lead to any conclusive inference that the petitioner had executed the work satisfactorily and was entitled to the sum of Rs. 3,75,000/-. On the contrary, immediately on the very next date after receiving the handing over letter of the petitioner, the concerned authorities of the respondents had issued a letter to the petitioner declaring that on inspection, the work executed by the petitioner was not found satisfactory and on being called upon to rectify the shortcomings, the petitioner did not come forward and as such, the petitioner was found not entitled to his claim for the amount of Rs. 3,75,000/-. The amount which the respondents have found to be admissible, has been paid to the petitioner. 9. Considering the rival submissions and from perusal of the documents on record, it appears that the dispute has been raised by the respondents regarding the balance of amount of the petitioner's money claimed. Whereas the petitioner, while relying on the office notings of the respondents, has claimed that there was no such dispute whatsoever, regarding the amount claimed by the petitioner and the respondents have deliberately tried to raise such disputes, the respondents, on the other hand, have disputed the claim on the ground that the petitioner's work was not found satisfactory and the same was not fully accepted by the concerned authorities of the respondents company and as such, the petitioner was not entitled to the amount claimed by him. This apparently suggests disputed question of facts, which cannot be looked into by this Court. Furthermore, by referring to the order passed by this Court on the petitioner's claim in the eariler writ application, it appears that in case of any dispute or in case any amount is disputed, the petitioner has been directed to move before the appropriate forum or civil coul1 of competent jurisdiction or Arbitrator. In the light of the above, this Court cannot possibly issue any specific direction to the respondents to pay any amount to the petitioner particularly, in the light of the disputed question of facts. In the light of the above, this Court cannot possibly issue any specific direction to the respondents to pay any amount to the petitioner particularly, in the light of the disputed question of facts. This writ application is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to seek his relief before the appropriate forum/Civil Court/Arbitrator, as directed in the earlier order of this Court passed in the previous writ application. The petitioner may, nevertheless, file a fresh representation before the Respondent No.2 Chief General Manager, C.C.L., Bokaro, inviting his attention specifically to the office notings and other such documents and the grounds which the petitioner orders in support of his claim, for payment of the amount. The Chief General Manager shall, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the representation, consider the same and pass an appropriate order and communicate effectively the decision taken, to the petitioner. If, even after such decision, the petitioner has any further grievance, then he would be at liberty to move before an appropriate forum/Civil Court of competent jurisdiction/Arbitrator for redressal of his grievance.