The main legal point established is that reimbursement for increased minimum wages, as a statutory obligation, is permissible, but claims involving disputed facts may not be granted under extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

A. K. PARICHHA. J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed this writ application for a direction to the opposite parties to prepare the final bill relating to construction of HIG duplex house at Jagamara, Bhubaneswar taking into consideration the escalation in the wholesale price index including enhanced rate of minimum wages fixed by the Government and also to clear up his other ancillary pending dues.

( 2 ) THE petitioner, a special class contractor, had been allotted with contract for construction of 50 Nos. of HIG duplex houses at Jagamara, Bhubaneswar and agreement No. 18-F/2 of 1989-90 had been executed. According to the agreement, the work was to commence from 2-2-1990 and was to be completed by 1-2-1991. Since the work could not be completed within the stipulated time and the petitioner could not even achieve a substantial progress in the work, the contract was rescinded by the opposite parties vide letter No. 2011 dated 26-11-1991. Later, on the prayer of the petitioner, discussion was held and the petitioner was allowed to continue the work and to complete the same by 31-5-1992. The petitioner could not complete the work by that scheduled date and prayed for extension of time and the authorities granted such extension with the condition that the petitioner shall not claim any compensation for price escalation. Ultimately, the work of 37 duplex houses was completed on 30th September, 1994 and final bills were prepared. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the said final bill, the differential escalation price of materials and POL as per the escalation clause incorporated in the agreement dated 5-8-1991 and the differential expenditure met by the petitioner on account of payment of wages at the revised rate were not included. His further grievance is that he had executed some works worth of Rs. 9,28,411/-beyond the agreement quantity, but payment of rs. 6,11,683/- was only made leaving a balance of Rs. 3,26,736/ -. According to him, he is entitled to get the different escalation price of materials and POL, differential expenditure met towards payment of wages on the revised rate fixed by the Government of Orissa in Labour Department, the balance amount relating to the works executed beyond the agreement quantity. He has accordingly prayed in this writ petition to direct the opposite parties to prepare the final bill incorporating the above noted claims and pay these amounts along with the admitted final bill amount of Rs. 3,77,563/-, Rs. 2. 81. 813/- and Rs. 1,75,550/- towards civil work. PH work and electrical works respectively.

( 3 ) OPPOSITE parties 1 to 3 in their counter affidavit have taken a stand that the period of execution of the work under Agreement no. 18-F/2 of 1989-90 was one year from the date of the contract and the agreement does not provide for any escalation they have averred that the petitioner could not even complete a substantial portion of the contract by the stipulated completion date for which the contract was rescinded, but subsequently, on the request of the petitioner and the undertaking given by him that he would not claim any compensation on account of escalation, he was allowed to continue the work and complete the same by 31st May, 1992, but this also the petitioner could not do and again prayed for extension of time giving further undertaking that he would not claim any compensation for the work undertaken during the extended period. According to them in view of the fact that the delay in execution occurred due to the laches on the part of the petitioner and also in view of the undertaking given by him the petitioner is not entitled to any additional amount notwithstanding that the minimum wages of labour have been enhanced by notification of the State Government dated 1-7-1990. It has been further averred by the opp. parties 1 to 3 that the dispute raised by the petitioner essentially relates to claim of money pursuant to an agreement, which cannot be granted in exercise of the extrao