Court Directs State to Pay Rs. 5,00,000 with Interest for Pontoon Bridge Project, Citing Acknowledged Departmental Liability
In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench, presided over by Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke, has mandated the immediate release of a payment amounting to Rs. 5,00,000, along with interest, to a contractor for the assembly, dismantling, erection, installation, and maintenance of a Pontoon Bridge at Atar Ghat, Sabalgarh, District Morena. The payment, which had been acknowledged by the competent departmental authorities, was withheld due to budgetary constraints.
The petitioner, Jitendra Singh Tomar, approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking redress for the non-payment of his dues despite the completion of the contracted work. The Court noted that the State's argument of pending budgetary allocation could not justify the indefinite withholding of an acknowledged liability.
The High Court's decision emphasized that administrative or budgetary difficulties do not exempt a department from fulfilling its financial obligations, especially when a competent authority has recognized the liability. The Court was informed that the Chief Engineer of the Public Works Department, Gwalior, had directed the payment, and a bill had been submitted by the Sub-Engineer, yet the funds had not been released due to a lack of budget allocation.
Justice Phadke underscored that the delay in payment was unwarranted, given that the department itself had demanded the necessary funds as early as December 2024. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to release the payment within four weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order, stressing that compliance should not be deferred due to budgetary issues.
Additionally, the Court ordered that the amount of Rs. 5,00,000 would accrue simple interest at 6% per annum from December 11, 2024, until the date of actual payment. This measure aims to compensate for the financial strain caused by the prolonged delay in settlement.
The ruling reinforces the legal principle that individuals and entities who have completed work for the government are entitled to timely payment, and administrative excuses cannot be used to deny legitimate claims. The decision is expected to expedite similar cases where contractors face delays due to bureaucratic hurdles.
Bottom Line :
Admitted contractual dues for work executed cannot be withheld indefinitely on the ground of non-availability of budgetary allocation; High Court can direct release of payment with interest when departmental liability is acknowledged.
Statutory provision(s): Articles 226, 227 of the Constitution of India
