JUDGMENT : 1. With the consent of counsel for the parties and considering the nature of relief sought for, the writ petition is admitted and taken up for final disposal. 2. Petitioner claims that he is engaged in execution of work by supplying men and material to the various Government Departments including the respondent Department. 3. Due to heavy rainfall in September 2014 in District Rajouri, whole place was flooded and several structures were damaged. It required immediate restoration work and therefore at the request of the Executive Engineer Irrigation, Division Rajouri, petitioner supplied men and material for restoration of Mangata 1st and 2nd irrigation Kohul. He executed the work at the cost of Rs. 14.50 lacs. The amount was not paid to the petitioner, therefore, he approached the DDC Rajouri-respondent No. 3. 3rd respondent who expressed his inability to make the payment for want of funds stating that it is to be released by Relief and Rehabilitation Department. DDC further approached Divisional Commissioner Jammu for release of funds and wrote a letter dated 27.04.2016 to the Commissioner-Secretary to Government of Jammu and Kashmir for release of funds so as to pay the petitioner who had executed the above work at the request of Executive Engineer Irrigation Department Rajouri. 3rd respondent-DDC also issued a letter on 26.04.2016 stating his inability to make payment for want of funds. 4. Having executed the work at his own expenses and having paid for the men and material, petitioner had no other option but to serve a legal notice upon the respondents on 02.09.2016. Despite the same, no action has been taken to pay the amount. Hence this writ petition. 5. Documents annexed with the writ petition clearly establish admission of liability to pay for the work executed by the petitioner at the request of the respondents, consequent to the floods in September 2014. Having expended the amount on the work executed, petitioner is entitled to be paid for work done. He cannot be deprived merely on the plea that respondent No. 1 is yet to approve the file and the department is short of funds. It is also to be noted that the payment for work completed cannot be retained without just reasonable cause. The petitioner’s claim, if it is otherwise justified and there being no restraint under law, should have been settled immediately. It is also to be noted that the payment for work completed cannot be retained without just reasonable cause. The petitioner’s claim, if it is otherwise justified and there being no restraint under law, should have been settled immediately. He should not have been forced to come to this Court. The petitioner will be greatly prejudiced by delayed payment as he will suffer interest on capital invested. 6. Hence, respondent No. 1 is directed to take a serious view of the matter and, if the amount is admitted, it should be released forthwith. According to the petitioner, legal notice has been served on respondents and it has not been replied yet. This clearly shows that the authority concerned had no legal basis to withhold the amount and they have no reply. The petitioner’s plea for mandamus deserves consideration. 7. In this view of the matter, respondent Nos. 1 2 and 3 are directed to take up the claim of the petitioner for settlement within a period of four weeks from the date of service of a copy of this order. Petitioner has clearly stated in the legal notice that he has obtained loan of Rs. 5.00 lacs from J & K Bank limited and, therefore, he is suffering the interest on this amount. Therefore Department has to consider the claim for interest on delayed payment. 8. The authorities are directed to release the amount immediately if there is no other legal impediment. 9. The writ petition is disposed of as above.