Disposed

Most. Salgi Devi v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC20 Oct 2014CWJC/15536/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an oral judgment in a writ application filed by a worker for payment of dues for completed construction work. The court directed specific respondents to pay the admissible amount within three months, noting that a counter-affidavit was pending. This was a thin order disposing of the matter without deciding merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondents 5 and 6 to pay the legitimate admissible amount to the petitioner within three months or pass a reasoned order declining payment.

Most. Salgi Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15536 of 2014

¶2

====================================================== Most. Salgi Devi, w/o Daso Tuddu, resident of Kenua Jharna, P.O.Tetariya, P.S. Katoria, District- Banka

¶3

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Bihar, Patna 2. The Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, Land Conservation, Patna 3. The Director, Land Conservation, Department of Agriculture, Bihar, Patna 4. The District Land Conservation Officer, Banka District- Banka 5. The District Magistrate, Banka, District Banka 6. Assistant Director, Work Shop, Land Conservation Department, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Durga Nand Jha, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Smt.Binita Singh, GP 31 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT

¶4

4 20-10-2014 Heard learned counsel for the parties as with regard to

¶5

the following relief prayed in this writ application :

¶6

"1(i) Issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus Directing and Commanding the Respondents to release the payment for the work done by the petitioner in respect of Pucca check dam in village Kenua Jharna under project No. 1/11-12 for which agreement was executed on 01.02.12 between petitioner and District Soil Conservation Officer, Banka in presence of two witnesses.

¶7

(ii) Issuance of an appropriate declaration and holding that once works order had been issued, agreement was executed, labours were engaged and works were completed, there is no justification to withhold the due payment and as such petitioner is entitled to said payment with interest @ 12% P.A. along with suitable amount of compensation causing economical and mental harassment.

¶8

(iii) Issuance of an appropriate holding that once works were completed, measurement was done, M.B. was verified and found correct, Part Payment was also made, there is no jurisdiction to withhold the Part Payment without any rhyme and reason and therefore, the respondents are obliged to release the payment with interest @ 12% P.A. along with adequate amount of compensation."

¶9

Patna High Court CWJC No.15536 of 2014 (4) dt.20-10-2014

¶10

2/3

¶11

Mr. Durga Nand Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the aforementioned prayer, has submitted that pursuant to an agreement and a consequential work, the petitioner has completed the work within the prescribed time and also as per the scope of the petitioner allotted to her, but despite her repeated representations, she has not been paid the amount to which she is entitled to get for completion of her work.

¶12

This case was filed on 08.09.2014 whereafter adjournment on two occasions were given to the learned counsel for the State vide order dated 11.09.2014 and 26.09.2014 to file a counter affidavit. The learned counsel for the State has however shown his inability to file such counter affidavit due to non-receipt of instruction by him.

¶13

In such a situation, this Court would direct the respondent nos. 5 and 6 to ensure that whatever legitimate and admissible amount is payable to the petitioner, the same must be paid to her within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If, however, for any justified reasons, it is held that the petitioner is not entitled for such payment, as being claimed by her, the competent authority must pass a reasoned order and also communicate it to the petitioner within the same period of three months.

¶14

Patna High Court CWJC No.15536 of 2014 (4) dt.20-10-2014

¶15

3/3

¶16

Let it be noted that in absence of the counter

¶17

affidavit, this Court has not gone into the merits of the claim of the petitioner.

¶18

With the aforementioned observation and direction, this writ application is disposed of.

¶19

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J)

¶20

Patna High Court Dated 2oth October 2014 NAFR/Sujit/-

¶21

Most. Salgi Devi v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Most. Salgi Devi v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalpana Kumari Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Authorised Officer Cum Branch Manager State Bank Of Inida Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Barhwa Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Ajay Engicon Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Pramila Devi Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Nathuni Mian Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.