STATE OF JHARKHAND Vs. GAJENDRA PRASAD HIMANSU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present review petition has been filed for reviewing the order/judgment dtd. 23/3/2021 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1634 of 2020, whereby the respondent authorities were directed to measure the additional work executed by the writ petitioner and to determine the amount to be paid to him for the said work with a further direction to complete all these exercise within a period of three months from the date of the said order.

(2.) Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned AAG-III appearing on behalf of the review petitioners submits that since no administrative approval of the additional work said to have been executed by the writ petitioner was taken from the Secretary, Building Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, no payment can be made to him for executing the same. It is also submitted that the work at the residence of the then Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro was done by the petitioner without awarding any contract in his favour and without following due procedure for the same as provided under Jharkhand Public Works Department Code. The execution of the said work by the petitioner (if at all) was in complete violation of Rule 158 of the Jharkhand Public Works Department Code.

(3.) Learned AAG-III, while referring to paragraph-10 of the order/judgement dtd. 23/3/2021 passed by this Court, submits that it was observed inter alia that on the one hand, the payment of the petitioner, who had already executed the additional work was not released on the ground of non-granting of administrative approval and on the other hand, the same work was allotted to a new tenderer, who had nothing to do with the said work. In fact, the new tender issued for the residence of the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro was for some other work and only part of the alleged additional work claimed to have been done by the writ petitioner had overlapped.