K.NARAYANANKUTTY Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that amounts due for works undertaken during the financial year 2002-03 have still not been paid by the respondent. The petitioner was the convenor of the beneficiary committee that was entrusted with the execution of the maintenance work of the Lift Irrigation Scheme of Puthussery Padasekharam for the year 2002-03. For the execution of the work, an agreement, Ext.P1 was entered into between the first respondent and the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner undertook the work and completed the same, to the satisfaction of respondents 1 and 2. However, the amounts due to the petitioner was not paid.

(2.) THE petitioner therefore approached the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram ('Ombudsman' for short). According to the petitioner, during the pendency of the said proceedings, an amount of Rs.40,257/- (Rupees forty thousand two hundred fifty seven only) was paid. However, the entire amount in respect of the electrification work that was undertaken and completed by the petitioner was not paid. The case of the first respondent before the Ombudsman was that the amount in respect of the electrification work could not be paid because the same was not certified by the electrical wing of the Minor Irrigation Department. After considering the contentions of the parties the Ombudsman directed payment of the amounts due to the petitioner, within a period of five months from the date of receipt of the said order. The relevant portion of the said order, Ext.P4 is reproduced hereunder for convenience of reference:-

(3.) A perusal of Ext.P1 agreement shows that the first respondent as per clauses 8 to 11 has agreed to pay the expenditure for the works undertaken and completed by the petitioner. The only rider is that if the expenditure is in excess of 50% of the estimated cost based on the 1996 PWD rates, the said expenditure would be met by the petitioner through the voluntary work or contributions of the beneficiaries. Admittedly, no such situation exists in the present case. A perusal of Ext.P4 order shows that the amount in respect of the electrification work undertaken by the petitioner was not paid for the only reason that the work had not been certified by the second respondent. I also take note of the fact that Ext.P4 order has been passed after issuing notice to second respondent as evident from Ext.P3. According to the petitioner, on receipt of Ext.P3, the second respondent had submitted a report to the Ombudsman stating that the said respondent was not in a position to make any payment to the petitioner for the reason that no work had been assigned to the petitioner. It is true that the second respondent has not entrusted any work to the petitioner. As per the agreement, Ext.P1, the payment has to be made to the petitioner by the first respondent upon the work of the petitioner being certified by the second respondent. Though the respondents had been directed to complete the formalities and to make the payment within a period of five months as per Ext.P4 order, the said course was also not adopted. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.