1. By invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for the direction to the respondents to pay amount of computation and gratuity with interest from the year 2000. It is also prayed that the respondents be directed to pay the costs of the litigation.

2. The petitioner was working as Sub-Engineer in Public Works Department (PWD). In 1989-90 some relief work was done on different roads. It is the case of the petitioner that no fund was alloted for payment of work, therefore, the Executive Engineer had granted the fund for payment of work from the head “A/R to roads” in August, 1990. The work was inspected and Collector Datia and Revenue Authority showed their satisfaction.

3. The Auditor has taken objection for the payment of Rs.1,16,113/- done by other head, i.e. “A/R to Roads”. Accordingly, the amount paid by the Executive Engineer is marked as miscellaneous advance to the petitioner. The amount was paid by the Executive Engineer through Revenue authority. Petitioner was nowhere in the picture in the matter of drawing or paying the said amount. The petitioner further contends that he came to know about the action taken by respondents regarding the said advance of Rs.1,16,113/- and then submitted series of representations to the respondents. In turn, the respondent No. 5/ Executive Engineer recommended the matter to the Superintendent Engineer on 14.7.2008, Annexure P/2. The Superintendent Engineer authorised the Executive Engineer for adjustment of the amount by letter dated 16.10.2008 Annexure P/3. The Executive Engineer wrote another letter dated 29.12.2008 to the Collector, District Datia for allotment of fund so that the advance amount marked in the name of petitioner can be adjusted. This letter is filed by the petitioner as Annexure P/4.

4. The petitioner contends that verbal assurances were given to him for refund of the amount after allotment from Collector, but the said assurance could not be translated in reality. The petitioner preferred another representation dated 27.10.2010. The petitioner has stated that because of aforesaid improper action on the part of the respondents, the petitioner has suffered a loss of Rs. 3.00 lacs from the year 2000. The petitioner has also suffered loss of interest on the said amount. The petitioner ultimately sent legal notice on 18.10.2011 Annexure P/6 to the respondent but it could not fetch any result. Although by Annexure P/8 the Executive Engineer recommended that the miscellaneous advance against the petitioner’s name be cancelled and allotment be made so that amount can be adjusted, but this letter also could not see the day of implementation. On the basis of aforesaid, it is stated that the action of respondents in not releasing the computation amount and gratuity is bad in law. Lastly, the petitioner contends that delay in payment is solely attributable to the respondents and because of delay the petitioner is entitled for the interest on delayed payment.

5. The said contention is opposed by the respondents by filing return. It is the stand of the respondents that petitioner stood retired from the post of Assistant Engineer on 31.7.2000. It is stated that there was a failure on the part of the petitioner as he did not prepare muster roll of the labourer engaged in the project and did not submit before the competent authority up to March 1990. The petitioner did not complete the formalities within time and because of this delay the allotment of amount was lapsed and the payment was made by the department in favour of the labourer and this amount was adjusted as a miscellaneous advance in the account of petitioner and for this reason the clearance in respect of payment of gratuity and computation amount could not be made in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner belatedly approached the authority and therefore, he is not entitled for any relief.

6. In view of the aforesaid stand, the question is wh