ORDER

1. The gamut of the grievance raised in the instant writ petition does not invite any pleadings in denial, as the documents annexed to the writ petition are sufficient enough for its disposal.

2. At the very outset, we must record our dismay over the conduct and the mannerism in which the authorities are dealing with the matter. Instead of complimenting the efforts and the endeavours taken by a contractor in securing the completion of the work entrusted to him, he is penalized for the lapses and the laches on the part of the authorities. It is trite law that a person cannot reap the benefit nor can take advantage of his own wrong and deny the legitimate claim emanating from the contract. It is one of the examples of proving such notion when the provisions contained in the Odisha Public Works Department Code (for short, “OPWD Code”) ordain certain action to be taken by the authority and having not taken such action, the contractor is penalized when no lapses and/or fault can be attributable to his execution of work.

3. Pursuant to a tender, the work was allotted to the petitioner, indicating the timeline within which the same has to be satisfactorily completed and it is not in dispute that the Government has incorporated the provision relating to an incentive to be given to the contractor who completed the project well before the date stipulated for completion. Undisputedly, the contractual as well as the statutory obligation ordains an incentive to the tune of 3% on the contract value in the event, the project is completed by the contractor well before the last date of completion but to his dismay, the lapses and laches attributable to the conduct of the Official have been projected and applied against him.

4. The final running account bill indicates that the work was completed well before the last date of the completion incorporated in the contract and a representation/application was made to the authority for extending the incentive at the rate of 3% of the agreed value as per Clause-34 of the Condition of Contract but the same is rejected. Firstly, the said claim is received in the Office on 19th September, 2024 though the work was actually completed on 1st July, 2023 and, therefore, in terms of Para-3.5.5(V) of Note-III of the OPWD Code, Volume-I, such belated application is not maintainable and/or entertainable. Note-III of Para-3.5.5(V) of the OPWD Code, Volume-I, as stood, is reproduced as under:

“Note-(III) – For availing Incentive Clause in any project which is completed before the stipulated date of completion, subject to other stipulations it is mandatory on the part of the concerned Executive Engineer to report the actual date of completion of the project as soon as possible through Fax or e-mail so that the report is received within 7 (seven) days of such completion by the concerned Superintending Engineer, Chief Engineer & the Administrative Department.”

5. On a meaningful reading of the language, words and the expressions used in the above quoted Clause, we fail to appreciate the stand taken by the authorities that it is obligatory on the part of a contractor to make an application within the specified time. The said provision does not ordain any application to be made by the contractor but mandated the Executive Engineer to report the actual date of completion of the project as soon as possible through e-mail or facsimile mail within seven days from the date of the completion thereof. The said Clause is misread, misconstrued and wrongly applied as a deterrent on the part of the contractor who appears to have been penalized for the lapses which cannot be attributable to his conduct. The bare reading of said Clause indicates that in order to avail the incentive Clause in any project completed before the actual date of completion, it is mandatory on the part of the concerned Executive Engineer to report the actual date of completion of the project through such modes with