Srinivas Rao Nayani vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. P.W.D. Civil Secrett. U.P. Lko. And 2 Others

Held

The Court, without entering into the merits of the case, disposed of the writ petition. The primary issue of the maintainability of the writ petition for arrears of payment was implicitly sidestepped by the Court's direction. The Court directed Respondent No. 3, the Chief Engineer, HQ-1, Uttar Pradesh Public Works Department, Lucknow, to decide the petitioner's representations dated October 12, 2022, and November 2, 2022. This decision was to be made by passing a speaking and reasoned order in accordance with the law within one month of the certified copy of the order being served. The State counsel had no objection to this modified prayer. No specific finding was made on the GST aspect as the dispute revolved around payment for services and the decision was procedural.

Facts

The petitioner, Srinivas Rao Nayani, entered into an agreement on April 22, 2022, with Respondent No. 3 for consultancy services related to a road asset management system. The contract price was Rs. 1,08,00,000/-, calculated at Rs. 3,00,000/- per month for 36 months, plus applicable GST. The petitioner commenced services on May 5, 2022, but had not received any payment by the time of the petition, despite submitting monthly bills and making representations on October 12, 2022, and November 2, 2022. The writ petition sought quashing of the rejection of salary payments from May 2022 onwards and a direction for payment of arrears with interest. The State counsel argued that a writ petition was not maintainable for payment of arrears.

Key Issues

1. Whether a writ petition is maintainable for directing payment of arrears of salary and other admissible benefits, including interest, to the petitioner for consultancy services rendered under a contract. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that an agreement was in place for consultancy services, and despite fulfilling his obligations, payment had not been made. He sought directions for payment of arrears and interest. When faced with the maintainability argument, the petitioner modified his prayer to seek a direction for the Respondent No. 3 to decide his pending representations dated October 12, 2022, and November 2, 2022, within a stipulated time. Respondent's arguments: The State counsel argued that a writ petition was not maintainable for issuing orders for the payment of arrears, implying that such disputes should be resolved through other legal avenues.