JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. I. S. Mazarbhuiya, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. N. Upadhyay, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Irrigation Department. 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 balance amount to which the Petitioner is entitled to upon completion of works. 3. The Petitioner herein is a registered Class I-C Contractor under the office of the Respondent No.3. 4. The case of the Petitioner herein is that, pursuant to a tender notice, the Petitioner participated in a tender process floated by Respondent No. 4 by submitting his bid and was found qualified for execution of a work having an approximate value of Rs. 15,00,000/- for construction of a Brick Lined Field Channel of 213.65M (1 Cusec) and a 645.00M Earthen Field Channel (1 Cusec), along with related structures like 3 commanding outlet, 1 Gated outlet, 3 cross drainages, 2 cattle crossings and 1 cart crossing at Ch. 3100M (L/B) of B2 Canal of the Pahumara CAD Project under the CADWM Programme, Assam, for the year 2016– 17. Accordingly, a formal work order was issued to the Petitioner vide letter dated 12.04.2017. 5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner had successfully completed the work and accordingly submitted bills amounting to Rs.13,21,662/-. However, only an amount of Rs.7,82,429/- has been paid, and the outstanding dues remain at Rs.5,39,232/-. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner has made several representations before the Respondent Authorities for release of the balance amount however the amount of Rs.5,39,232/- is still pending, for which the Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. Mr. N. Upadhyay, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Irrigation Department submitted that as to whether the Petitioner had completed the works 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. 7. 7. 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 to which the Petitioner is entitled to, if any. 8. It is under such circumstances, this Court therefore disposes of the instant writ petition thereby directing the Respondent Authorities more particularly the Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 5 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 works 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.3 and the payment thereupon be made in terms with the judgment rendered in the case of Tamsher Ali (supra). 9. With above observations and directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.