AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
12 paragraphs · 274 wordsArindam Sinha, J
Mr. Sahoo, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and draws attention to order dated 10th November, 2022. The order is reproduced below.
“1. Mr. Sahoo, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, impugned is order dated 16th February, 2018, by which the Collector said his client is not eligible to get the amount as the work was completed. He had not applied for the aid while the work was in progress.
He submits, 90 man days of work at Rs.17 per day, aggregate Rs.15,660/- was the claim rejected.
Mr. Babu, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State and prays for adjournment to obtain instruction regarding prescribed procedure for claiming the aid.
Court understands that the aid sought is for labour and not cost of materials.
List on 17th November, 2022”
Mr. Babu hands up circular dated 3rd August, 2015 addressed to the administration to submit, it was said, inter alia, the IAY/Biju Pucca Ghar Yojona beneficiaries are entitled for labour component at 95 and 90 percentage in IAP and non IAP districts respectively as per stages of constructions specified therein. The circular is handed back to Mr. Babu.
This circular can be relied upon to deny payment prior to achieving the specified stage of construction. It cannot be resorted to for denying payment.
Opposite party no.2 will verify petitioner’s claim and if found genuine, pay the same in accordance with aforesaid circular. The payment is to be made or refusal be informed to petitioner, within three weeks of communication.
The writ petition is disposed of.
........................................................