Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1137 (PAT)

Manoj Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar

2014-11-17

MIHIR KUMAR JHA

body2014
JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the parties as with regard to the following relief, prayed in this writ application:- “for commanding the respondents authorities to pay the admitted dues of the petitioner amount of Rs. 4,47,100/- (Rs. Four lakh Forty seven thousand One Hundred) only, for the work which was completed in pursuant of Agreement No. 50f-2/2011-12 dated 06.06.2011, which was the work to Renovation work of Old O.P.D. And Administrative Building is Sadar Hospital, Ara for the year, 2010-11.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that pursuant to an award of contract reduced in writing by way of agreement, the petitioner has completed the work of renovation of Old O.P.D., and Administrative Building of Sadar Hospital, Ara, way back in the year 2011-12 but then the payment of the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 4,47,100/- has not been paid to the petitioner by the authorities of the State Government. 3. This Court on earlier occasion having noticed the same argument had given time to the learned counsel for the State by order dated 13.10.2014, to file his counter affidavit. Today, learned counsel for the Sate having received the statement of fact has submitted that the Building Construction Department, admits the work done by the petitioner and the payment to be admitted but it is all on account of crunch of fund for payment cannot be made to the petitioner. In this regard, he has referred to some departmental communication being made by the Building Construction Department to the Health Department from the Office of the Chief Engineer. 4. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner has no concern with the Health Department. It was the department of Building Construction which had allotted the work of the petitioner pursuant to a valid agreement and the same has been successfully completed to the satisfaction of the concerned authorities of Building Construction Department. Thus from where and how the fund would be arranged by the Building Construction Department, is not the headache of the petitioner. In all fairness and the Building Construction Department should not have started the work if the fund was not available with it. Thus from where and how the fund would be arranged by the Building Construction Department, is not the headache of the petitioner. In all fairness and the Building Construction Department should not have started the work if the fund was not available with it. Having taken the work to its own satisfaction and therefore, being no complaint of any nature whatsoever against the petitioner in respect of completion of the work either in capacity or in the schedule period of time, the authorities of the Building Construction Department could not have withheld the payment of the petitioner specially when they have also made part payment of the amount. 5. The arrangement of fund between the different departments can never be a ground for refusing payment to the contractor. Henceforth the Building Construction Department and for that purpose any department which enters into an agreement must ensure that such work order would be issued in the event of availability of the fund or the work will be taken to the extent of the fund being made available by the parent department. 6. All these aspects infact relate to matter of policy and therefore, this Court would expect Chief Secretary of the Government of Bihar to come out with a firm decision as with regard to the manner in which the departments are to coordinate with each other in the matter of release of fund prior to issuance of the work order making the fund available so that the work in question undertaken by the concerned department is not adversely affected and at the same time the contractor who completes the work as per the terms and conditions of the agreement is also not unnecessarily harassed in getting its legitimate payment. 7. Coming to the facts of this case since the claim of the petitioner is admitted by the Chief Engineer of the Building Construction Department, he is hereby directed to make payment to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order and thereafter keep on making communications to the Health Department. 8. 7. Coming to the facts of this case since the claim of the petitioner is admitted by the Chief Engineer of the Building Construction Department, he is hereby directed to make payment to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order and thereafter keep on making communications to the Health Department. 8. It is also made clear that if such payment is not made to the petitioner in the aforesaid period of one month, he must be entitled for interest @ 6 per cent per annum, and such amount of interest which would become payable to the petitioner shall be recovered from the salary of the concerned Chief Engineer. 9. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of.