DHIRENDRA KUMAR DAS Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Satapathy, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner. He submits, initially work order dtd. 1/5/2012 was issued to his client for purpose of excavation and creation of pond for Pisciculture. Value of the work order was Rs.1,15,000.00. The work order stood issued by the Fisheries Department in implementing provisions in Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (MGNREGA). He submits, subsequently fresh work order was issued enhancing the value to Rs.1,86,000.00. His client completed the work but payment on the work order was not made. On earlier approach to this Court, his client's writ petition was disposed of with direction upon the authorities to consider his client's claim. The consideration resulted in impugned order dtd. 16/12/2019. He submits, there be interference with purported decisions stated in impugned order, to deny his client's entitlement to payment under the work order. He clarifies, the revised work order was issued under the scheme 'Mo Pokhari' also covered by MGNREGA.

(2.) Mr. Nanda, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of opposite party nos.1 to 4. He draws attention to paragraph 5 in the counter and submits, the pond under 'Mo Pokhari' was completed during years, 2012-13 and an amount of Rs.37,716.00 was released in favour of job card holders for the excavation work. He submits, there should not be interference.

(3.) For purpose of adjudication Court looked at guidelines for excavation of multipurpose farm pond under NREGS circulated vide letter dtd. 4/1/2010, of Panchayat Raj Department. Reproduced below is object of the guidelines.