Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 598 (JHR)

Srinath Mishra v. State of Jharkhand

2009-04-22

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2009
JUDGMENT : Since the issues involved in both these cases are identical, they are being disposed of by this common order. Petitioners in these writ applications, have prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, directing the Respondents to release and to pay to them the admitted dues against the work done by them, for the year 2005-06 which was allotted to them under the ‘Sampurna Gram Vikas Yojana-II. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the Respondent-State. Learned counsel for the petitioners would explain that the petitioner no. 1, namely, Srinath Mishra [in W.P. (C) No. 4372 of 2008] has completed the allotted work of construction of P.C.C. Road from the main road to the house of Ramzan Ansari vide Scheme No. 23 of 2005-06. Likewise, the petitioner no. 2, namely, Sushil Singh, has completed the allotted work of Irrigation Drain for the amount of Rs. 99,800/-from the 20’ well of the Sushil Singh under Scheme No. 10 of 2005-06 and the petitioner No. 3, namely, Sanjay Kumar Singh has allotted the work for construction of 20’ Irrigation Drain from the 20’ well (Damar village) under Scheme No. 12 of 2005-06, for the amount of Rs. 98,800/-. Learned counsel would further explain that the petitioner No. 1, namely, Kamala Pandey, [in W.P. (C) No. 4382 of 2008] has completed the allotted work of construction of Guard Wall under Scheme No. 3/2005-06 under Kolhuwa Panchayat, nearby Longa River and was sanctioned Rs.98,500/-. Likewise, the petitioner No. 2, namely, Rakesh Prasad [in W.P. (C) No. 4382 of 2008] has also completed the work of construction of P.C.C. Road from the main road to the house of Bihari Sao as Scheme No. 20 of 2005-06 and was sanctioned Rs. 91,000/-, whereas, the petitioner no. 3, namely, Ram Pravesh Prasad [in W.P. (C) No. 4382 of 2008] has also completed the allotted work for construction of PCC Road from the Mundan Ghat to Henho Road under Scheme No. 6 of 2005-06 and was sanctioned Rs. 99,900/-. The grievance of the petitioners in both the writ applications is that even after the successful completion of the work allotted, the final payment has not been made to the petitioners. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 99,900/-. The grievance of the petitioners in both the writ applications is that even after the successful completion of the work allotted, the final payment has not been made to the petitioners. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5, namely, the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa, the Deputy Development Commissioner, Garhwa and the Block Development Officer, Nagar Untari Block, Garhwa, wherein, the claim of the petitioners appears to have been virtually admitted. As per the statements contained at para 10 of the counter affidavit in W.P. (C) No. 4372 of 2008, it appears that admittedly the petitioner No. 1, has worked for the value of Rs.56,500/-out of which he has received payment with royalty and tax, Rs. 7590/-only and now the balance payable amount is Rs.47437/-remains outstanding. Likewise, the admitted dues of the petitioner No. 2 has been stated as Rs. 42229/-after the royalties and the tax paid to him. The admitted dues payable to the Respondent No. 3 is Rs.47437/-after the royalties and the tax paid to him. As per the statements contained at para 10 of the counter affidavit in W.P. (C) No. 4382 of 2008, it appears that admittedly the petitioner No. 1, has worked for the value of Rs.97,756/-out of which he has received payment with royalty and tax, Rs. 68,887 only and now the balance payable amount is Rs.28869/-remains outstanding. Likewise, the admitted dues of the petitioner No. 2 has been stated as Rs. 66599/-after the royalties and the tax paid to him. The admitted dues payable to the Respondent No. 3 is Rs.42279/-after the royalties and the tax paid to him. Learned counsel for the Respondents submits that a letter has already been forwarded to the Director, Sampurna Gram Vikas Yojna, Rural Development Department, Government of India, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi vide letter No. 1696, dated 05.09.2006 for allotment of funds and to enable payment of the outstanding dues to the petitioners. Learned counsel explains further that on account of non-release of funds by the Central and the State Government, the petitioners have not been paid their dues. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance, the Respondent Nos. Learned counsel explains further that on account of non-release of funds by the Central and the State Government, the petitioners have not been paid their dues. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance, the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to consider the demands of the petitioners and to ensure that the payment of the admitted dues of the petitioners is made to them within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If the amount assessed as payable to the petitioners [in both the writ applications], is not paid to them within the time stipulated in this order, then such amount shall carry interest to be paid by the Respondents @ 6 per cent per annum from the date it became payable till the final payment. With these observations both these writ applications [W.P. (C) No. 4372 of 2008 and W.P. (C) No. 4382 of 2008] are disposed of at the stage of admission itself. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the Respondent-State.