The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of claimants to outstanding dues for contractual works, the need for certification of liability, and the applicability of the Limitation Act in such cases.

B. K. SHARMA, J. :- This batch of writ petitions and the two writ appeals are before us in terms of the order passed on 18-5-2007 by the Division Bench of this Court in W. A. No. 484/2005. The writ appeal has been filed against the order dated 8-6-2005 passed in WP (C) No. 247/2005 by which the learned Single Judge entertained the claim of the writ petitioner for payment of the contractual bill amount pertaining to the works completed by the petitioner in terms of the work orders issued by the respondents during the period from 14-11-1996 to 12-3-2004. The writ petition was disposed of by the impugned order dated 8-6-2005 in terms of the earlier judgment and order dated 31-5-2005 passed by the learned single Judge in WP (C) No. 8995/2004 (Jatin Pathak v. State of Assam and Ors.) which was filed claiming similar relief.

2. Since the writ petition was disposed of in terms of the earlier judgment and order dated 31-5-2005 in WP(C) No. 3354/2004, a little reference to the facts involved in the said writ petition may be made herein. The writ petition was filed seeking appropriate directions for payment of an amount of Rs. 8,82,064/-, which was claimed to be the admitted amount payable to the petitioner on account of contractual works performed and executed by him for the Public Works Department (PWD) of the Government of Assam.

3. The claim made by the writ petitioner had been admitted to be due and payable by the departmental secretary in the counter affidavit filed. The ground assigned for nonpayment of the amount was stated to be on account of paucity of fund. It was stated that no sooner the requisite funds are received by the department, the dues of the petitioner would be settled without any further delay. It was noticed that in similar situations several writ petitions were disposed of earlier directing the department to pay the outstanding dues of the petitioners therein within a particular time frame. Many of such orders having remained unimplemented, contempt proceedings had been initiated wherein the defence taken by the concerned officer(s) was that the order of the Court had remained unimplemented not on account of any deliberate omission, but because of the fact that no money was available for payment, in accordance with the directions issued.

4. Having regard to the proceeding in hand including the proceeding in Contempt Case No. 5/2004 and the stand of the Departmental Commissioner and Special Secretary in his affidavit, the Court reasonably assumed that there would be a large number of other contractors to whom money is due, but who may not have moved the Court for payment of their admitted outstanding dues. It was in such circumstances, the writ petition was disposed of in little modification of the orders passed earlier in similar matters so as to secure the interests of all concerned and to ensue an equitable distribution of Government fund in discharge of the admitted outstanding dues for the citizens.

5. While disposing of the writ petition, it was also ordered that the directions contained in the order should be adopted by the Department in deciding all similar claims that may be pending before it. The directions are as follows :

"(1) The Public Works Department of the State of Assam shall prepare a list of contractors, in each of its Division, to whom money is admitted to be due on account of the contract works performed whether under orders of the Court or otherwise.

(2) Such lists will be prepared Division-wise in strict chronological order on the basis of the date on which payment is due.

(3) In drawing of the aforesaid list, the names of the contractors may be arranged under the separate Heads of Accounts that may be involved.

(4) That funds received by the Public Works Department under the particular Heads of Accounts and against the Division will be applied for discharge of the admitted dues in the order in which the list is prepared and maintained.

(5) All the contractors who claim money to be due wil