Petitioner claimed payment for completed data entry work. Court held paucity of funds cannot excuse non-payment and directed respondent to audit bills and pay admissible amount with 12% interest within three months.
Direction to examine bills within three months and release admissible amount with 12% interest if not paid without valid reasons.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14683 of 2012
| ====================================================== Sanjay Kumar, Son of Indradeo Prasad, Proprietor Genius Solution, 501, 5th Floor, Hari Om Commercial Complex, Dak Banglow Road, Patna, presently residing of Mohalla Yogiatoli, Yarpur, P.S. Gardanibagh, District Patna .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India, through the Department of Posts, Govt. of India. 2. The Chief Post Master General, Bihar Circle, Patna. 3. The Chief Post Master, G.P.O., Patna. 4. The Assistant Post Master, H.S.G.-1, SBSO, Patna, G.P.O., Patna .... .... Respondents |
|
|---|---|
| ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Amar Nath Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : None ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH ORALORDER |
|
| 2 | 13-08-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. However, no one |
| appears for the respondents. |
As per the case of petitioner, under valid orders of the respondents, he executed the work of data entry and signature scanning of all types of accounts and transactions through Sanchay Post within the jurisdiction of G.P.O., Patna and completed the same to their satisfaction in 2009. Thereafter he submitted his bills. The grievance is that though some amount of the bills has been paid to petitioner, rest of the amount still remains due.
It goes without saying that, if the petitioner has completed the work as per the contract agreement and to the satisfaction of the respondents, he is entitled for payment of his bills and the respondents have no authority to withhold the same indefinitely
Patna High Court CWJC No.14683 of 2012 (2) dt.13-08-2012
2 / 2
without any valid and cogent reasons. It may be made clear that, since petitioner claims to have done the work in terms of the agreement and/or under valid orders/authorization by the competent authorities, paucity of fund or non-allotment of fund cannot and should not be an excuse for keeping his bills pending.
In the circumstances, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the concerned respondent, responsible for payment of the amount of bills of the petitioner, to examine his bills in the light of work done by him and ensure release of admissible amount of the bills to the petitioner positively within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, if necessary, by arranging fund for the same, failing which, the said respondent shall be liable to pay an interest on the amount, at the rate of 12% compoundable yearly, from his own pocket. In case, the said respondent finds that the amount of bill or any part thereof is not payable to the petitioner, he shall communicate the same to the petitioner in specific terms, assigning reasons thereof, within that very period. In that event, petitioner shall be at liberty to seek his remedy in accordance with law before an appropriate forum and claim adjudication in respect of his entitlement of the said amount with interest.
(Jayanandan Singh, J)
B.T/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondent can withhold payment of bills due to paucity of funds without valid reasons?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sanjay Kumar
The Union of India through Department of Posts
Jayanandan Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
