2026:JHHC:10097 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.6263 of 2018 Indo Engineering Service, Dudhani, P.O. & P.S. Dumka, District- Dumka, through its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar, Son of Sri Narayan Verma, resident of Dudhani, P.O. & P.S. Dumka, District-Dumka. …. Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Drinking Water & Sanitation Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi. 3. Engineer-in-Chief, Drinking Water & Sanitation Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi 4. Superintending Engineer, Mechanical Circle, Dumka, P.O. & P.S. Dumka, District-Drinking Water and Sanitation Dumka. 5. Executive Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Mechanical Division, Dumka, P.O. & P.S. Dumka, District-Dumka. … Respondent(s) -------- CORAM: SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Nawal Kishor Pandey, Advocate ------ 8/08.04.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner has prayed in this writ petition for release of the admitted dues. Earlier the petitioner has approached this court by filing the writ petition No.2784 of 2015, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner thereafter was decided vide impugned order dated 19.03.2018 which is at Annexure-7, wherein it has been held that there is admissible dues of Rs.5,75,744/- for one work order, however the rest of the amount, which the petitioner has claimed is not admitted on the ground that the said work order has been cancelled as the work pursuant to the work order has not been 2026:JHHC:10097 2 completed. 3. From the impugned order, I find that the respondents have admitted that the amount of Rs.5,75,744/- is due to the petitioner. Further, so far as NIT No.2/2014-15 work orders No. 130,202,204, 207, 209 and 46 has yet not been completed. Thus, I find that any amount over and above Rs.5,75,744/- which the petitioner is claiming, is not admitted by the respondents. It is expected that the admitted amount should be disbursed at the earliest, if not already done. 4. Thus, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition as the matter has to be adjudicated by leading documentary and oral evidences as to whether the petitioner has completed the work or not. 5. With liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court, this writ petition is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 08.04.2026 R.Kumar