Sarat Kumar Samal Vs State of Odisha

1. The petitioner being emerged successful in connection with the tender call notice dated 25^th November, 2021 invited by the Chief Construction Engineer, Rural Works Circle, Balasore-opposite party no.3, an agreement bearing No.96/P-1 of 2021-22 has been executed on 29^th December, 2021 indicating date of commencement of work as 29^th December, 2021 with stipulation as to completion on 28^th November, 2021. The petitioner completed the work in all respect on 24^th June, 2022, which was intimated to the Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Division, Bhadrak on 28^th June, 2022. By letter dated 29^th June, 2022, the Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Division, Bhadrak communicated the fact of completion of work in all respect on 24^th June, 2022, which is six month five days before the stipulated date of completion as per agreement to the Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Division, Bhadrak.

¶14

Page 1 of 9

¶15

1.1. The Chief Construction Engineer, Rural Works Circle, Balasore issued Letter No.3435, dated 16^th August, 2023 addressed to the Chief Engineer (Roads), Rural Works, Odisha, Bhubaneswar stating as follows:

¶16

“The work has been completed in all respect earlier before 30% of contract period (i.e. 6 month 5 days against 11 months) and thus eligible for incentive on early completion of project @ of 5% of contract value.

¶17

As such it is requested to consider the incentive proposal as per Clause 1.11 DTCN & Amendment 2016 Vol-I of O.P.W.D. This is for favour of kind information and necessary action.”

¶18

1.2. Despite such information given to the Chief Engineer (Roads), Rural Works, Odisha, Bhubaneswar, the petitioner being not accorded with the legitimate claim in terms of Clause 1.11 of the Detailed Tender Call Notice (DTCN) and Paragraph 3.5.5(V) of Note-III of OPWD Code (Volume-I) as amended by virtue of Office Memorandum File No.07556900032016-5288/W, dated 4^th May, 2016 issued by the Government of Odisha in Works Department, the petitioner has come up before this Court by way of filing this writ petition invoking provisions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer(s):

¶19

“It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to

¶20

Page 2 of 9

¶21

I. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus in directing the Opp. Party No.2-Chief Engineer (Roads), Rural Works, Odisha to forthwith approve the petitioner's incentive dues under Clause 1.11 of the DTCN, strictly in terms of the recommendations of the Chief Construction Engineer, Opp. Party No.3 dated 16.08.2023 (Annexure5) and the Superintending Engineer, Opp. Party No.4 dated 04.04.2023 (Annexure-4), and thereafter to ensure release of the incentive amount @ 2% of the contract value for the work Improvement Daxin Teghari High School PWD road to Bindhapadmapur-Talsari road via Ranibasan and Krushnanagar road under MMSY for the year 2021-22 within a time to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court;

¶22

II. Issue direction to the Opposite Parties to pay interest 12% per annum (or at such rate as this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper) on the eligible incentive amount, from 31.03.2023 (the actual date of completion of work) till the date of actual payment;

¶23

III. The unexplained and prolonged delay in processing and approving the petitioner's incentive dues shall be declared arbitrary, unreasonable, mala fide in law and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India;

¶24

IV. Any other writ, order or direction may be issued as this Hon’ble Coat deems fit, just, equitable, proper and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶25

V. And in this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound every pray.”

¶26

2. As the document forming part of writ petition evince the aforesaid undisputed facts, it is felt necessary to dispose of the writ petition as keeping the matter pending would not subserve any fruitful purpose.

¶27

Page 3 of 9

¶28

3. Learned Additional Government Advocate having appeared for opposite parties, waives issue of notice as advance copy of the writ petition had already been served upon him on 9^th December, 2025.

¶29

4. Perusal of the documents enclosed with the writ petition, it is revealed that Clause 1.11 of the DTCN entitles the petitioner to avail the incentive as follows:

¶30

“1.11. For availing Incentive Clause in any project which is completed before the stipulated date of completion subject to other stipulations it is mandatory on the part of the concerned Superintending Engineers/Executive Engineers to report the actual date of completion of the project as soon as possible through fax or e-mail so that the report is received within 7 (seven) days of such completion by the concerned Superintending Engineer, Engineer-in-Chief & the Administrative Department.”

¶31

4.1. Paragraph 3.5.5(V) of Note-III of OPWD Code (Volume-I) as amended by Office Memorandum dated 4^th May, 2016 reads as follows:

¶32

“For availing Incentive Clause in any project which is completed before the stipulated date of completion, subject to other stipulations it is mandatory on the part of the concerned Executive Engineer to report the actual date of completion of the project as soon as possible through Fax or e-mail so that the report is received within 7 (seven) days of such completion by the concerned Superintending Engineer, Chief Engineer & the Administrative Department. ***”

¶33

Page 4 of 9

¶34

4.2 . Letters of Superintending Engineer dated 29^th June, 2022 (Annexure-4) and the Chief Engineer (Roads), Rural Works Circle, Balasore dated 16^th August, 2023 (Anneuxre-5) addressed to the Chief Engineer (Roads) Rural Works, Odisha, Bhubaneswar unequivocally reflects that the work entrusted to the petitioner was completed in all respect before 24^th June, 2022, i.e ., around six months five days before the stipulated date of completion. Since the work was completed much ahead of date so stipulated, i.e., 28^th November, 2022 as per agreement dated 29^th December, 2021, the petitioner is entitled to claim incentive as envisaged in Clause 1.11 of the DTCN and in terms of Paragraph 3.5.5 (V) of Note-III of the OPWD Code (Volume-I).

¶35

5 . Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to and cited order dated 18^th March, 2021 passed in the case of Jayram Pujahari vs. State of Odisha and others , WP(C) No.30637 of 2020 , wherein the following has been observed:

¶36

“6. *** Thus, timely intimation of completion of the project by the concerned Executive Engineer is a mandatory requirement under the aforesaid provision in order to avail incentive by the Contractor for early completion of the Project. The report that regard has to be intimated within a period of seven days from the date of completion of the project. Admittedly, the intimation was not sent by the Executive Engineer within the stipulated period of seven days. There is

¶37

Page 5 of 9

¶38

also no allegation that the Petitioner has contributed to such delay in intimation. In view of the ratio in Prafulla Kumar Pradhan vs. State of Odisha, 2017 (I) ILR-CUT-381, the Petitioner cannot be faulted with for the delay in communication of the completion report by the Executive Engineer. The Petitioner cannot be made to suffer for no fault on his part, particularly when the authorities have accepted the fact that the Project was completed prior to the stipulated date.

¶39

7. In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation to set aside the order dated 20^th August, 2020 (Annexure-1) passed by the Commissioner-cumSecretary, Works Department, Government of Odisha, Bhubaneswar (OP No.1) in refusing the claim of the petitioner for grant of incentive.”

¶40

5.1. It is submitted that the said order was carried before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by the State of Odisha in SLP (C) No.12359 of 2021, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 5^th April, 2023 with the following observation(s):

¶41

“Learned counsel for the petitioner-State made a statement before us in compliance of our order dated 19.08.2021 & 17.09.2021, the Government of Orissa has conducted the enquiry as directed and the report has been placed on the record of the case and a SOP has also been notified on 03.03.2022. Additional affidavit is taken on record. The SOP having been finalised, the same would govern the timely completion of project and the grant of incentive for the same.

¶42

However, in so far as the present case is concerned, we see no good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court and as such, the special leave petition, in so far as

¶43

Page 6 of 9

¶44

the challenge to the impugned order is concerned, stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

¶45

5.2 . Against the denial of incentive under the above Paragraph of the OPWD Code, where the work entrusted to the petitioner in Sairaj Dalai Vs. State of Odisha and others, WP(C) No.15195 of 2025 got completed before the stipulated date as per agreement, vide order dated 8^th April, 2026 held as follows:

¶46

“5. On a meaningful reading of the language, words and the expressions used in the above quoted Clause, we fail to appreciate the stand taken by the authorities that it is obligatory on the part of a contractor to make an application within the specified time. The said provision does not ordain any application to be made by the contractor but mandated the Executive Engineer to report the actual date of completion of the project as soon as possible through e-mail or facsimile mail within seven days from the date of the completion thereof. The said Clause is misread, misconstrued and wrongly applied as a deterrent on the part of the contractor who appears to have been penalized for the lapses which cannot be attributable to his conduct. The bare reading of said Clause indicates that in order to avail the incentive Clause in any project completed before the actual date of completion, it is mandatory on the part of the concerned Executive Engineer to report the actual date of completion of the project through such modes within seven days therefrom.

¶47

6. It is improbable and inconceivable that a person or the authority would reap the benefit of his own wrong and deny the just and equitable claim on such score. We fail to find any words or the expressions from the said Clause

¶48

Page 7 of 9

¶49

as quoted above that makes it imperative on the part of the contractor to approach the authority by making an application but it conveys a clear and laudable message that it is obligatory on the part of the authority concerned to report through such modes within the time stipulated therein. If the authority has committed a mistake or his conduct indicates some lapses and negligence on his part in not reporting the date of completion of the entire project, the contractor who should be incentivized by virtue of said Clause-34 should not be penalized.

¶50

7. Simply on the equitable principle that a person cannot reap the benefit from his own wrong, the authority on account of his lapses cannot deny the legitimate claim shifting the lapses to the shoulder of the contractor. The contractor who completed the work before handed cannot be denied such beneficial piece of the Clause which gives incentives to him who has diligently executed the work to the satisfaction of the authority.

¶51

8. We, thus, do not find that the authority can take advantage of his own lapses and/or wrong committed by him as a weapon to deny the just and equitable claim accrued to the petitioner in terms of such Clause-34 and, therefore, the order of rejection dated 8^th November, 2024 is hereby quashed and set aside.”

¶52

6 . The letters dated 29^th June, 2022 and 16^th August, 2023 vide Annexure-4 and 5 respectively as referred to above clinch that the work entrusted to the petitioner has been completed one month and three days ahead of stipulated date of completion, i.e., 24^th June, 2022 as per agreement dated 29^th December, 2021 (Annexure-1). The learned Additional Standing Counsel having not impeached such letters of the Superintending Engineer and the Chief Construction

¶53

Page 8 of 9

¶54

Engineer having admitted commencement of works on 29^th December, 2021 and completion thereof on 28^th November, 2022, the legitimate claim of the petitioner cannot, thus, be denied or delayed in view of the clarified position as set forth in the aforesaid decisions.

¶55

6.1. It is, therefore, felt expedient to direct the Chief Engineer (Roads), Rural Works, Odisha, Bhubaneswar to take a decision on the recommendation made to him by the Chief Construction Engineer, Rural Works Circle, Balasore vide Letter No.3435, dated 16^th August, 2023 within a period of two weeks from receipt of copy of this order in the light of discussions made supra and communicate the result thereof to the petitioner forthwith.

¶56

7 . With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of; and pending Interlocutory Application (s), if any, shall also be disposed of.

¶57

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

¶58

(M.S. Raman) Judge

¶59

MRS/Laxmikant

¶60

Signature Not Verified

¶61

Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 17-Apr-2026 14:36:55

¶62

Page 9 of 9

Sarat Kumar Samal v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarat Kumar Samal v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajiba Lochan Pattanayak Vs the Principal Commissioner Cgst and Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Commissionerate

Sambhunath Rana Vs the Principal Commissioner, Cgst and Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Commissionerate

Bibhu Bhusan Panda Vs State of Odisha

S1 Security Services India Private Limited.,Bhubaneswar Vs State of Odisha

Bikash Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Srujeet Khuntia Vs State of Odisha