MOKHTAR ANSARI Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) Petitioners have sought payment of outstanding dues to the tune of Rs. 1,60,000.00, Rs. 2,00,000.00 and Rs. 1,27,000.00 respectively against each of them towards execution of work under Sampurna Gramin Rojgar Yojna, as per work orders (Annexure-1 series) issued by the Respondent No. 5 - Executive Engineer, Special Division No. II, Garhwa dated 10.12.2005, 18.01.2006 and 10.12.2005. According to them, part payment has been made against the total estimated value of work of Rs. 3,60,000.00, Rs. 4,27,182.00 and Rs. 3,27,000.00 respectively against each of these petitioners. Petitioners have made representation such as Annexure-4 series before the Respondent Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa without any avail. Therefore, they have approached this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Respondent State is present. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5. At paragraph-7, 8, 9 and 10, statements have been made about allotment of the scheme to the petitioners; completion of respective work allotted to the petitioners has been found during inquiry by the Respondent No. 5 and part payment of contractual dues to the tune of Rs. 1,60,000.00, Rs. 2,27,182.00 and Rs. 2,00,000.00 respectively against each of these three petitioners. According to them, Rs. 95,755.00, Rs. 2,22,550.00 and Rs. 75,290.00 are due for payment in respect of which, Respondent No. 5 made a request to the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa (Respondent No. 3) vide Annexure-A letter dated 2. 18.12.2014. The Deputy Commissioner, Gahrwa through his letter No. 340/Manrega dated 18.06.2015 has requested the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Jharkhand Government and again through another letter dated 13.08.2015 for allotment of fund for payment to the petitioners (Annexures-B &C). Since no allotment has been sanctioned to the Respondent District authorities, Garhwa, payments have not been made. It is also stated that scheme under S.G.R.Y. are closed since 2006. Respondent have however denied the claim of interest made on behalf of the petitioners.