PABSCON Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The instant writ petition has been preferred for a direction upon the respondents to pay the admitted balance amount by way of difference due to escalation of price of bitumen, chips and the security money lying in deposit with the respondents with interest till date of actual payment.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on account of the policies of the respondent- government as contained in notification dated 21.1.2004 the petitioner was entitled for the escalated cost of bitumen for execution of the work as per the work order dated 9.10.2002(Annexure-1). As per the counsel for the petitioner by the communication contained at annexure-6 dated 4.1.2006 from the Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department Circular, Hazaribag to the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Division, Giridih, recommendation was made for payment of Rs. 42,22,440/- as difference amount of escalation cost of bitumen, but only a sum of Rs. 37,28,872/- was sanctioned for payment. It is stated on his behalf that in the counter affidavit it has been indicated that this amount has already been paid, but the petitioner has refuted it by filing supplementary affidavit dated 27.11.2009.

(3.) It is further case of the petitioner that although as per annexure-7 dated 14.9.2004 issued by the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Divison. Giridih it is clear that the respondents have found that the petitioner has completed the work in schedule time on 15.8.2004 with high degree of workmanship, however, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in spite of the said completion of work, the refund of security money of the petitioner, which is supposed to be paid within 6 months from the date of completion of work as per clause 16 of the agreement has not been released.