JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. A.K. Azad, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Ms. M. Das, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the PWD. 2. The case of the Petitioner herein is that the Petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Respondent Authorities in not making payment of the amount to which the Petitioner is entitled upon completion of the work. 3. The Petitioner herein is a registered Class-1(A) contractor under the PWD, Government of Assam, and has executed various works in the said Department to the entire satisfaction of the concerned authorities. 4. The case of the Petitioner herein is that, vide Work Order No. CE/NEC/BR/11/2012/Pt-V/7 dated 10.10.2012 issued after completion of the tender process against Tender No. NEC/BR/08 of 2012–13 of the Chief Engineer (Border Roads & NEC Works), a formal work order was issued in favour of the Petitioner by the Chief Engineer, PWD, Border Roads & NEC Works, Assam, Guwahati. By the said work order, the Petitioner was allotted the work, namely, “Development of Margherita–Deomali Road in Tinsukia District in Assam under the Social and Infrastructure Development Fund (SIDF) (Ch. 0.00 m to Ch. 750.00 m, including construction of R.C.C. Bridge No. ½), Package No. TSK-SP-1A.” 5. It is the case of the Petitioner that, after signing of the agreement and furnishing of performance security, the Chief Engineer, PWD, Border Roads & NEC Works, Assam, on 10.10.2012, issued a letter to the Petitioner asking him to proceed with the execution of the said work in accordance with the contract documents. Accordingly, the Petitioner commenced the work as per the terms and conditions of the agreement and submitted Running Account Bills for the said work before the Respondent Authorities from time to time. 6. It is the further case of the Petitioner that the Respondent Authorities made part payments of the running bills of the Petitioner, and finally, on 10.11.2015, the Petitioner completed the said work and submitted the final bill. Thereafter, the Executive Engineer, PWD, Tinsukia State Road Division issued a Completion Certificate certifying that the work had been physically verified by him and found to have been completed by the Petitioner in all respects in accordance with the specifications, drawings, and tender conditions, with 100% physical progress. Thereafter, the Executive Engineer, PWD, Tinsukia State Road Division issued a Completion Certificate certifying that the work had been physically verified by him and found to have been completed by the Petitioner in all respects in accordance with the specifications, drawings, and tender conditions, with 100% physical progress. Further to that, it is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent Authorities paid an amount of Rs. 1,74,78,299/- against the bills submitted by the Petitioner from time to time, and at the time of such payments, the Respondent Authorities deducted all applicable charges, such as Income Tax, VAT, Labour Cess, etc., and also deducted security deposits against each and every bill of the Petitioner. In this regard, the Executive Engineer, PWD, Digboi & Margherita Territorial Road Division, issued a Liability Statement on 30.06.2020, wherein it was mentioned that the Petitioner had been paid an amount of Rs. 1,74,78,299/- after deductions, and that an amount of Rs. 13,08,014/- remained outstanding as balance bill amount payable to the Petitioner. It was further mentioned that the security deposit amounting to Rs. 12,05,309/- deducted from the Petitioner’s bills was also liable to be paid to the Petitioner. It is further averred in the writ petition that the Petitioner submitted a representation on 10.08.2020 to the Executive Engineer, PWD, Margherita–Digboi Territorial Road Division, Tinsukia, praying for payment of the outstanding bill amount and security deposit. However, no steps were taken in that regard. The Petitioner also submitted a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on 25.09.2020 to the Chief Secretary, Government of Assam as well as to Respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 5, requesting payment of the outstanding bill amount and security deposit within three months. However, no steps have been taken by the Respondent Authorities, and it is under such circumstances that the instant writ petition has been filed. 7. Ms. M. Das, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the PWD submits that as to whether the Petitioner has completed the work in terms with the work order in question is a subject matter of verification which needs to be carried out by the Respondent Authorities and it is only on the basis of such verification, the actual entitlement of the Petitioner could be ascertained. 8. 8. Upon hearing the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the interest of justice would be met if a direction is given to the Respondent Authorities to verify as to whether the Petitioner has completed the works in accordance with the work order and thereupon to ascertain the exact amount and pay the amount to which the Petitioner is entitled to. 9. It is under such circumstances, this Court therefore disposes of the instant writ petition thereby directing the Respondent Authorities more particularly the Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 to verify the entitlement of the Petitioner on the basis of the work order which was issued in favour of the Petitioner and as to whether the Petitioner has completed the work in question and thereupon, after verification, if it is found that the Petitioner is entitled to any amount, the same should be paid to the Petitioner in terms with the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Tamsher Ali and Others Vs. State of Assam and others reported in 2008 (4) GLT 1 . The said verification be completed within a period of 1 (one) month from the date a certified copy of the instant order is served upon the Respondent No.2 and the payment thereupon be made in terms with the judgment rendered in the case of Tamsher Ali (supra) . It is further observed that upon verification, if it is found that the Petitioner is entitled to any amount, the bank guarantee so submitted by the Petitioner be returned. 10. With above observations and directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.