Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:38789-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12171 of 2022 Petitioner :- M/S Sai Kripa Technocrafts Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jahnavi Tripathi,Santosh Kumar Mishra,Varun Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. Heard Ms. Jahnavi Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. This Court had passed following orders on 5.2.2025:- "1. Heard Ms. Jahnavi Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent State. 2. Petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ-C No.28582 of 2021, which was disposed of vide following order passed on 29.11.2021:- "An order was issued by the respondent no. 2 directing the petitioner to supply certain materials and undertake certain work. It is stated that the work in terms of such direction has been completed but the admitted dues are not being released to petitioner despite repeated letters/ representations. Learned Standing Counsel submits that such grievance of the petitioner shall be got examined by respondent no. 2, at the first instance. In such circumstances, petitioner is permitted to represent its grievance before respondent no.2, who shall examine petitioner's claim and pass an appropriate reasoned order, within a further period of three months, thereafter. Writ petition is disposed off, accordingly. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the claim of petitioner on merits and all issues are left open to be considered by the authority concerned." 3. Pursuant to this order a decision has been taken by the Superintending Engineer, according to which, claim of the petitioner has been kept pending only because financial approval of the higher authorities is awaited. We find substance in the contention of petitioner that action of respondents in withholding admitted dues for so long is not fair. Claim of petitioner for release of admitted dues alongwith interest in terms of contract/policy cannot be kept pending indefinitely. 4. In that view of the matter, we direct respondent no.2 to file his personal affidavit clearly stating as to why claim of the petitioner has not been accorded consideration and is kept pending for so long and also explain as to why personal responsibility of the officer concerned be not fixed in the matter. 5. List on 25.02.2025, amongst top ten cases." An affidavit has been filed by the Superintending Engineer in which the award of contract to the petitioner as well as its satisfactory performance are not disputed. What is disputed by the respondent is that the work of supplying and installing of kitchen tables in the field hostel kitchen under the Erch Multipurpose Dam Project was executed without proper financial and administrative approval as the work was not included in the detailed project report. It is also suggested that certain action is proposed against the concerned Engineers who have retired long back. We cannot appreciate the stand of the respondents in firstly getting the work undertaken from the petitioner and when this Court has called upon the respondents to explain as to why the budgetary allocation has not been provided the respondents now attempt to question the very award of contract. The work order was issued to the petitioner on 16.12.2016. Work was completed in 2017. Bills have remained pending ever since then. The writ petition has been filed in 2022 for payment of admitted amount. It is only after this Court has passed the above order on 5.2.2025 that the respondents woke up from deep slumber and started challenging the very award of contract on the ground that the DPR did not include such work. In the event such work was not the part of DPR there was no reason as to why such work was awarded to the petitioner. The respondents having taken work from the petitioner now cannot be permitted to take 'U' turn and question the very award of contract to the petitioner. This would be wholly arbitrary. So far as holding of the inquiry against guilty officers is concerned, that would be a matter between employer and the employee on which this Court refrains from observing any further. However, we cannot endorse the action of the respondents in denying payment of admitted dues to the petitioner, particularly after several years of the performance of work under the contract. In that view of the matter, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to release the admitted dues of the petitioner alongwith interest quantified as per the bank rate, which shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. No order is passed as to costs. Order Date :- 18.3.2025 Ranjeet Sahu Digitally signed by :- RANJEET SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad