IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.3932 of 2008 ------ Tej Narayan Singh son of late Adya Singh, Resident of village and PO Gangsara, Police Station Sarairanjan, District Samastipur (Bihar) ... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Director Department of Horticulture, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 3. Deputy Director Horticulture, Government of Jharkhand, Krishi Bhawan, Kanke Road, Ranchi. 4. District Horticulture Officer, Gumla. .... .... .... Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner : None For the State : Mr. Anshuman Kumar, AC to SC (L&C)-II ------ Order No.13 Dated- 15-01-2025 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. I have heard the counsel for the State. The petitioner has prayed in this writ petition for a direction upon the respondents to forthwith pay the due amount of Rs.61,838/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum which is due against the expenditure as contained in his representation (Annexure-2, 2/1) on different heads spent by the petitioner in Gumla nursery, Gumla. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the State wherein at paragraph-7, it has been disclosed that only those vouchers/bills which were authenticated, has been considered for payment and based on said vouchers/bills, decision has been taken and the cheques for making payment to the petitioner amounting to Rs.10,000/- vide Cheque No.560434 dated 17.11.2009 and Rs.15084/- vide Cheque No. 560435 dated 22.01.2010 have been prepared. In para-15 they have stated that the petitioner's claim of Rs.61795.55/- is not genuine and in paragraph-18 it has been submitted that the genuine claim of Travelling Allowance of Rs.10,200/- has already been paid and the rest amount is not admitted, as there is doubt about the said expenditure. The transportation charge of Rs.4,000/- has already been paid and the petitioner claims some bills/vouchers twice and in nutshell, the genuine amount of Rs.14,884.00/- has already been paid. As per the respondent-State, the total amount of Rs. 25,084/- has already been paid, which is admissible. Considering the submissions made in the writ petition and the disclosure made in the counter-affidavit, filed on behalf of the State I find that the admitted amount has already been paid and the rest of the amount is disputed by the State. The dispute in respect of the payment which has not been admitted, cannot be decided in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and for which the petitioner has to approach the civil court. Thus, considering the fact that the admitted amount has already been paid, I am not inclined to pass any order in this writ petition. This writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the petitioner that if he claims any further amount, he should approach the appropriate civil court having jurisdiction. (ANANDA SEN, J. ) RKM/