JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. Prayer in this writ petition is for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents to make the payment to the petitioner in respect of the work done/completed. 3. Submission is that the petitioner is a registered contractor in Public Works Department, Ballia and completed the work assigned satisfactorily. Submission is that after completion of work in the year 2000, bills were submitted but till date payment has not been made to the petitioner. Record shows that there is no dispute with regard to the work done/completed by the petitioner and the amount so payable to the petitioner has been physically and technically verified and all the bills are passed by the authorities but due to non availability of fund/budget the petitioner is not able to get the amount. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent authorities. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by S.P. Srivastava, who is Assistant Engineer in Public Works Department in paragraph Nos. 4 to 8 has accepted the liability for payment to the petitioner for the work done. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that the payment of the bill is already under consideration and the amount shall be paid as soon as the funds are released by the State Government. 5. In view of the aforesaid there is absolutely no dispute of the fact that the claim of the petitioner is not justified. 6. Accordingly, this Court is convinced that delay in making payment to the petitioner is not justified. It has been held by this Court that on completion of work if there is no dispute about bill/quantum of payment payment should be ensured to the petitioner and the writ petitions were allowed from time to time. Reference can be given to the recent orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 8974 of 2005, Chain Shakti Cosmetic decided on 9.7.2009 and Writ Petition No 14821 of 2008, Vijay Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 13.7.2009. 7. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to get relief. 8. This writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 7. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to get relief. 8. This writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Respondents are directed to ensure payment of outstanding amount as may be found due and payable to the petitioner with the interest of twelve per cent per annum from one month after the date of entitlement to the date of payment. The payment has to be ensured within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. ————