IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4892 of 2026 Decided on: 04.08.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mahesh Sharma …..Petitioner Versus Executive Engineer Dharamshala and Anr. . .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sumeet Raj Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Sikandar Bhusha, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge This writ petition has been filed seeking directions “to make payment of undisputed amount of Rs. 51,27,562/- towards final bill alongwith interest @18% per annum”. 2. Following order was passed in this matter on 13.07.2026:- “Following order was passed in this matter on 07.07.2026:- "Previous order dated 17.06.2026 has not been complied with, in terms of which, out of the admitted liability towards the petitioner, Rs.20 Lakhs were to be credited in his bank account 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 within five days. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this assurance has not been honored by the respondent. The further assurance extended for the respondent to discharge the remaining pending liability towards the petitioner by today has also not been heeded to. Respondent has also not remained present in the Court despite there being specific direction in the order. At the request of learned Deputy Advocate General, the matter is adjourned to 13.07.2026 at costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the respondent to the petitioner on the date fixed. In case the previous order is not implemented by the next date, the respondent shall remain present in the Court." A demand draft in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- drawn in the name of the petitioner, has been handed over to his learned Senior Counsel by the learned Assistant Advocate General in terms of the costs imposed in the aforesaid order dated 07.07.2026. Though Rs.20 Lakhs are now stated to have been credited in petitioner's bank account, but the remaining liability of the petitioner is yet to be discharged by the respondent. Sh. Chander Shekhar, Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Dharamshala, who is present in the Court, seeks three weeks' time to place on record fresh instructions. At this stage, at the request of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, 'State of Himachal Pradesh through the Secretary (Public Works Department) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh' is impleaded as respondent No.2 to the writ petition. Amended memo of parties be filed within two weeks. The Registry is directed to carry out necessary corrections in the cause title. The Officer present in the Court has not disputed that it is the respondent-Public Works Department that had executed the contract agreement with the 3 petitioner for the construction work. That liability towards the work completed by the petitioner in terms of the contract agreement is yet to be discharged by the Public Works Department. Keeping in view the submissions made for the respondents, final opportunity of two weeks is granted to the respondents to make admissible payments to the petitioner, failing which, the respondents shall remain present in the Court on the next date. List on 04.08.2026.” 3. Pursuant to the above, order, learned Deputy Advocate General has placed on record office instructions dated 03.08.2026 from the Executive Engineer, Dharamshala Division, HPPWD Dharamshala, conveying that subsequent to the receipt of necessary rate approvals for extra and substitute items of the Chief Engineer, HPPWD Kangra Zone/competent authority, the total final work executed by the contractor (petitioner) has been evaluated and revised to Rs.1,94,98,822/- instead of provisional estimated amount intimated earlier. After tabulating the comprehensive bill-wise financial details, statutory deductions and tokens passed through treasury, the net amount payable to the petitioner has been worked out at Rs.1,84,47,930/-. The amount already disbursed to the petitioner has also been reflected as Rs.1,84,47,930/-. 4 Respondents have taken the stand that the complete payment due to the petitioner against the executed works has been successfully processed and disbursed by the respondent-Department. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner disputes the above facts projected for the respondents. According to learned Senior Counsel, the amount admissible to the petitioner under the works in question still remains to be paid to the petitioner. 5. In view of surviving disputes on facts between the parties, but taking note of the above office instructions, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy for the redressal of his surviving grievances against the respondents in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua August 04, 2026 Judge R.Atal