UNITED CONTRACTORS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

(2.) It is the conceded position that respondent No. 5-Shri Satnam Singh, while working as an Executive Engineer at the relevant time, passed the impugned order dated 5.10.2000 (Annexure P-13) whereby in terms of Clause-2 of the Contract Agreement No. 2 of 1998-99, he imposed a liability upon the petitioner to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,95,604/- being 5% of the agreement amount of Rs. 2,19,12,082/-.

(3.) Aggrieved at the afore-mentioned order, the petitioner submitted a representation-cum-appeal in terms of the agreement between the parties. It is also not disputed that meanwhile respondent No. 5 (Shri Satnam Singh) having been promoted as Superintending Engineer, entertained the said representation-cum-appeal against his own order dated 28.7.2003 (Annexure P- 23) and dismissed the same vide one of the impugned order dated 18.6.2003 (Annexure P-23).