JUDGMENT : 1. The writ petition has been filed by a Contractor seeking mandamus to direct the respondents to pay the sum that is lawfully due to the petitioner consequent to the execution of the work assigned to him by respondent No. 4-Chief Engineer PW (R&B) Department Jammu vide letter dated 14.07.2012 pertaining to the construction of proposed Mini Secretariat Building (G+2) RCC column framed structure (Erection of Structure only) (Block Akhnoor District Jammu. 2. The work was granted in July 2012 and completed in October 2014 and a claim was made for a sum of Rs. 1.00 crore, of this a sum of Rs. 35.00 Lacs has been paid to the contractor during the period of contract. There is no dispute on the execution of the work. Petitioner has made a request to Chief Engineer and the Chief Engineer in turn wrote to The Financial Commissioner, Revenue Department Jammu-respondent No. 2 for release of the requisite funds (Annexure-P3). On 28.03.2015, Joint Director (P&S) wrote to the Principal Secretary to Government, Planning & Development Department, Jammu- respondent No. 1 for release of requisite funds. 3. These correspondences clearly establishes that there is a valid claim on behalf of the petitioner for release of balance funds consequent to the execution of the work. Learned Senior counsel relies upon representations dated 29.09.2014, 19.01.2015, 01.06.2015, 15.01.2016 and 17.06.2016. Despite these series of representations made, the claim of the petitioner has not been settled and the petitioner is forced to come before this Court. 4. Notice was issued. No counter has been filed. 5. By the nature of the relief sought for in the writ petition and the fact that some amount has been already released during the contract period and the request is made by the Chief Engineer and Financial Commissioner to respondent No. 1 for release balance payment makes it amply clear that there is no dispute as to the liability of the respondents to pay the petitioner the balance sum that is due to him consequent to the execution of the Contract. 6. Respondents did not dispute the claim. Hence, it is incumbent on the Department to settle the amount at an earliest so as to avoid the petitioner suffering further from any financial difficulty and towards payment of interest which he might have suffered in the commercial transaction. 7. Mr.
6. Respondents did not dispute the claim. Hence, it is incumbent on the Department to settle the amount at an earliest so as to avoid the petitioner suffering further from any financial difficulty and towards payment of interest which he might have suffered in the commercial transaction. 7. Mr. Faraz Iqbal, learned Deputy Advocate General states that if a direction is issued based on the statement made by the Chief Engineer and the Financial Commissioner to respondent No. 1, the authorities concerned will take decision on the matter as may be directed by the Court. 8. In this view of the matter, when there is a part payment made consequent to the contract executed and in the light of the recommendations made by Chief Engineer and Financial Commissioner to respondent No. 1, respondent No. 1 has to take a final decision within four weeks from the date service of copy of this order, when served. The balance amount that is lawfully due to the petitioner together with the interest, if there is a claim for interest, be paid to the petitioner at the earliest. 9. It is desirable that the respondents-Government settles the claims of this nature without undue delay. Unexplained delay gives rise to unnecessary litigations and accusation against the official authority when they do not consider settling lawful claims. The department which benefits by way of work executed for public good should not force the petitioner/contractor to languish the corridors of the department/Secretariat to get his lawful dues. 10. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations.