BHASKAR RAMCHANDRA JOSHI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for the direction to the respondents to pay amount of computation and gratuity with interest from the year 2000. It is also prayed that the respondents be directed to pay the costs of the litigation.

(2.) The petitioner was working as Sub-Engineer in Public Works Department (PWD). In 1989-90 some relief work was done on different roads. It is the case of the petitioner that no fund was alloted for payment of work, therefore, the Executive Engineer had granted the fund for payment of work from the head "A/R to roads" in August, 1990. The work was inspected and Collector Datia and Revenue Authority showed their satisfaction.

(3.) The Auditor has taken objection for the payment of Rs.1,16,113/- done by other head, i.e. "A/R to Roads". Accordingly, the amount paid by the Executive Engineer is marked as miscellaneous advance to the petitioner. The amount was paid by the Executive Engineer through Revenue authority. Petitioner was nowhere in the picture in the matter of drawing or paying the said amount. The petitioner further contends that he came to know about the action taken by respondents regarding the said advance of Rs.1,16,113/- and then submitted series of representations to the respondents. In turn, the respondent No.5 / Executive Engineer recommended the matter to the Superintendent Engineer on 14.07.2008, Annexure P/2. The Superintendent Engineer authorised the Executive Engineer for adjustment of the amount by letter dated 16.10.2008 Annexure P/3. The Executive Engineer wrote another letter dated 29.12.2008 to the Collector, District Datia for allotment of fund so that the advance amount marked in the name of petitioner can be adjusted. This letter is filed by the petitioner as Annexure P/4.