IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
W.P. (C) No. 1725 of 2005
...
Chandrawati Devi ... ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Chief Engineer, Public Works Division (Roads), Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. Executive Engineer, National Highways Division, Barhi, Hazaribagh.
4. Assistant Engineer, National Highways Sub-Division, Giridih.
5. Superintending Engineer, National Highways Sub-Division, Dhanbad.
6. Junior Engineer, National Highways Sub-Division, Giridih. ...Respondents.
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
...
For the Petitioner : - M/s. S. Topno, Birendra Kr. & M. K. Bhagat.
For the State : - J.C. to G.P. III.
...
6/15.12.2009
Learned counsel for the Respondents submits at the outset that though
the counter affidavit has been filed indicating that the same has been filed on behalf
of the Respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 but since the Respondent Nos. 4 and 6 also
happen to be Government officers of the concerned Department, the counter affidavit
may be treated as filed on behalf of all the Respondents.
2. In compliance with the order dated 09.12.2009, the Chief Engineer,
Public Works Division (Roads), Jharkhand, Ranchi (Respondent No. 2), the
Executive Engineer, National Highways Division, Barhi Hazaribagh (Respondent
No. 3) and the Superintending Engineer, National Highways Division, Barhi,
Hazaribagh (Respondent No. 5) are physically present in Court today.
3. Counter affidavits have been filed on their behalf.
4. From the preliminary submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner by reference to the several documents filed as Annexures to the writ
application, it appears that in response to the work orders given to him, the petitioner
had executed four different works. The details of the works executed, were entered in
the Corresponding Measurement Books. The petitioner raised a total bill for the
payment of the works executed by him. The then Executive Engineer by virtue of his
Certificate (Annexures-6 and 9) had confirmed that from the Measurement Books
and other documents and on inspection, it was found that the petitioner did execute
the work and he is entitled for payment of the amounts for the works executed.
5. However, as appearing from the counter affidavit of the Respondents,
the amounts have not been paid to the petitioner only on the ground that he had
executed the works on the basis of the verbal instructions of the then Superintending
Engineer and that before commencement of the work, the Junior Engineer had not
obtained confirmation of the verbal orders. This being in purported violation of the
Office Circular, issued by the Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, the
petitioner is not entitled for claiming any payment. It is acknowledged, nevertheless,
that the works, which the petitioner had executed after obtaining the written orders,
have been acknowledged and against the same, a sum of Rs.16,250/- was found
payable to the petitioner and an assurance has been given to release such payments to
the petitioner.
6. As it appears, it is not disputed that the petitioner did execute the
works to the satisfaction of the concerned authorities of the Respondents, which has
been confirmed by the then Executive Engineer in his letters (Annexures-6 and 9
respectively). Merely because some lapses has occurred on the part of the Junior
Engineer, who had not obtained confirmation of the verbal orders, it cannot be
disputed that the petitioner had executed the works and is entitled to the payment for
the works executed by him.
7. In the light of the letters of the then Executive Engineer, National
Highways Division, Barhi, Hazaribagh (Annexures-6 and 9), the concerned
authorities of the Respondents ought to have considered the petitioner’s claim in
accordance with the demands of equity and natural justice, instead of taking a
technical plea to refuse payment to him.
8. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the Chief Engineer,
National Highways Division, Hazaribagh who is presently the controlling authority,
shall consider the petitioner’s claim in proper perspective by referring to all the
materials, which the petitioner produces along with his fresh representation, and take
an appropriate decision on the petitioner’s claim within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of the representation filed by the petitioner. Upon being satisfied
that the petitioner is entitled, to any amount, the Chief Engineer shall specify such
amount and ensure that the payment thereof is released to the petitioner within one
month from the date of decision taken on the petitioner’s representation.
9. With these observations, this writ application stands disposed of at the
stage of admission.
10. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the
Respondents.
11. The personal appearance of the Chief Engineer, Public Works
Division (Roads), Jharkhand, Ranchi (Respondent No. 2), the Executive Engineer,
National Highways Division, Barhi Hazaribagh (Respondent No. 3) and the
Superintending Engineer, National Highways Division, Barhi, Hazaribagh
(Respondent No. 5) is dispensed with.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)
APK