DANDASI SAHU Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has filed this writ application with the following prayers:

(2.) THE case of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner was awarded with a work for construction of Badadeb Sagar M.I.P. in Kudakhandi Block & after the award of work, the Petitioner was asked to execute F/2 Agreement No. 20 F2 of 1991 -92 with the State of Orissa on 11.2.1992. A copy of the agreement has been annexed to the Writ Petition as Annexure -1. After completion of the work on 10.2.1994, a completion certificate was Issued. The said certificate has been annexed as Annexure - 2 & the final bill to the tune of Rs. 59,777 was paid on 5.6.1995. As the matter stood thus, the Petitioner was asked by letter dated 7.6.1997 issued by the Executive Engineer -Opp. Party No. 1 to refund the aforesaid amount as the price escalation on labour was not admissible where the agreement, estimate has been framed in minimum wages of Rs. 25 w.e.f. 1.7.1990. In the said letter it was clarified that the Petitioner was not entitled to get escalation charges on labour as the bills were calculated basing on the Reserve Bank of India Bulletin, in reply to the said letter, the Petitioner has said in his letter dated 30.6.1997 that he has offered the rates at the time Of tender keeping in an eye view to the D.T.C.N. & increased labour rate for which he has been reimbursed. Since no excess amount has been paid to him, no amount is liable to be refunded. The aforesaid matter was reported to the Opp. Party No. 2 -Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Bhubaneswar & the Chief Engineer directed that the Petitioner is not entitled to excess amount as there has been no change in the minimum wages by the State Government. Therefore, the Chief Engineer by letter dated 14.8.1997 vide Annexure -8 directed to the effect that in accordance with the instruction issued by the Government in Rural Development Department vide their letter No. 3369 dated 23.2.1993 excess payment of escalation charges made towards labour components are to be recovered from the contractor as there has been no change in the minimum charges after 1.7.1990 till the completion of the work by the Petitioner.

(3.) MR . K.N. Jena, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner stated that the extra amount has been paid to the Petitioner towards the price escalation on labour charges on the basis of average consumer price index issued by the R.B.I. Bulletin. In this regard, Mr. Jena relied upon a decision reported in : AIR 1997 Orissa 142 (State of Orissa v. Birat Chandra Dagara).