SARINS GREEN HOUSE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 4-Engineering Projects (India) Limited an agency for respondents No. 2 and 3 has issued two work orders in favour of the petitioner:

(2.) The stipulated date for completion of the said two work orders was 16.02011 and 14.07.2011 respectively. Within the stipulated period, it was not completed as a result whereof, extension of time was granted up to 30.11.2013 but without any financial effect/escalations as is clear from the communication dated 20.05.2013 addressed to the respondent No. 4. The respondent No. 4 in turn has conveyed the same to the petitioner vide communication dated 31.05.2013. Then, again time was extended till 15.01.2014. Finally, the work was completed.

(3.) The petitioner submitted the escalation bill which in turn was submitted by the respondent No. 4 to the Chief Engineer, Assam Rifles on 21.09.2016 for an amount of Rs. 1,54,87,613.00 (Rupees one crore fifty four lakhs eighty seven thousand and six hundred thirteen only). The Directorate General Assam Rifles, Shillong vide order dated 25.10.2016 accorded sanction for an amount of Rs. 1,00,43,884.00 (Rupees one crore forty three thousand eight hundred and eighty four only) for payment of escalation bill to the respondent No. 4 wherein, it is also mentioned that the bill from EPIL (respondent No. 4) is technically checked and passed for an amount of Rs. 1,00,43,884.00 (Rupees one crore forty three thousand eight hundred and eighty four only). After deduction, balance amount of Rs. 94,36,371.00 (Rupees ninety four lakhs thirty six thousand and three hundred seventy one only) was released in favour of the respondent No. 4. When the amount was not paid to the petitioner, through her counsel notice was served upon the respondents No. 3 and 4, which has been responded vide communication dated 06.04.2017 whereunder, it was conveyed that extension of time to complete all works as mentioned in the notice was granted by DGAR (Competent Financial Authority) on the condition that "no escalation will be paid". It has also been mentioned that the contention of the contractor that MOU/contract agreement stating escalation will be paid for justified extended period shall have no bearing as the extension letter itself would have served as a corrigendum to the contractual agreement/MOU and as such post extension on specific terms of the original contract agreement would stand merged with the letter granting extension of time with specific conditions.