HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 31589 of 2025 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has prayed for the following relief: "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to release the payment of Rs.98403/- in favour of the petitioner with regard to the contract work bearing work order no. A. Work Order No.33/31 for the year 2018-19 amounting to Rs.19992/ B. Work Order No.36/51 for the year 2018-19 amounting to Rs.19692/-. C. Work Order No.37/51 for the year 2018-19 amounting to Rs.19721/- D. Work order No.38/51 for the year 2018-19 amounting to Rs.19998/-. Including a further sum of Rs.19,000/- for the year 2019-20 within a short stipulated time period as may be specified by this Hon'ble Court. (ii) Issue any other suitable writ/order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts of the case. (iii) To award cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was given a contract by the respondents for repair and dumping the soil by J.C.B. and work order was issued to the petitioner. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajay Kumar Shukla, Gaurav Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Ajay Kumar Mishr .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner completed the work and the same was duly supervised by the concerned Engineers of the department, and after the measurement of the work completed, the bill was submitted by the petitioner to the respondents, but not a single penny has been paid to the petitioner for work done by the petitioner. The petitioner claims that he has submitted several representations to the authority concerned, but no heed has been paid on the said representations of the petitioner. 5. Learned Standing Counsel submits that no useful would be served in keeping the writ petition pending and appropriate direction may be issued to the respondent no.4 to consider the grievance of the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed off permitting the petitioner to submit a fresh representation ventilating all his grievances before the respondent no.4-Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Kaushambi along with a certified copy of this order within a period of one month from today. In case any such representation is filed by the petitioner, respondent no.4 shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of one month thereafter. September 25, 2025 NS WRIC No. 31589 of 2025 2 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad