Back
"No Win-Win for the State": J&K High Court Slams Delay Tactics in Contractor Payments
In a strongly worded ruling that underscores fairness in government dealings, the has directed the to release ₹7.71 lakh in admitted dues to a local engineering firm within four weeks—or face 6% interest. Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, delivering the oral judgment on , in M/s Krishna Engineering Works v. & Ors. (WP(C) No. 73/2024), rejected the department's reliance on missing procedural formalities as a "" excuse after work was fully executed.
This decision, echoing media reports on the court's frustration with bureaucratic foot-dragging, reinforces that the state cannot enjoy years of free use of contractors' services without accountability.
From Job Orders to Judicial Knockout: The Petitioner's Ordeal
M/s Krishna Engineering Works, a Jammu-based proprietorship run by Ajay Kumar (son of the late Krishan Kumar), specializes in electrical and mechanical repairs for pumps, motors, and more. Between and , the firm's Executive Engineer in Akhnoor issued job orders for various works totaling ₹7,71,224. The petitioner completed all tasks on time, to the department's satisfaction, and submitted verified bills—stamped by the Assistant Executive Engineer as far back as .
Despite this, payments stalled, plunging the small firm into financial hardship. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a for release of dues plus 18% interest, citing the department's admitted liability.
Department's Defense Crumbles Under Scrutiny
Petitioner's counsel, , hammered home the verified bills and successful execution, arguing the delay breached statutory duties.
Respondents, via , countered with a rejection order. They claimed the claim lacked "codal formalities" like e-tendering, administrative approval, and technical sanction—mandatory under the financial code. This came after a court nudge to consider the claim.
Court's Razor-Sharp Legal Dissection: Precedents Seal the Deal
Justice Nargal dismantled the defense, noting contractors rely on departments to handle approvals before issuing job orders. Raising them post-execution is an "afterthought" to evade payment.
Drawing from Supreme Court benchmarks: - Ramakrishna Construction Co. v. Union of India (2010) 3 SCC 579: State cannot arbitrarily withhold payment once work is executed and liability admitted. - Surya Constructions v. State of U.P. (1986) 3 SCC 247: Writ jurisdiction applies to unjustly withheld contractual dues.
The bench aligned with its priors, like M/s Saint Solider Engineer and Contractor Pvt Ltd v. (2025), barring "" objections to approvals or funds, and mandating interest for delays. Similarly, M/s Tech Build & Associate v. (2025) held departments accountable for their own procedural lapses.
kicked in too: With bills verified and liability acknowledged, respondents couldn't revisit contract validity years later.
Key Observations: The Court's Blunt Words
“The persons who execute the work on behalf of the respondents do so with a belief that all the codal formalities would be taken care of by the respondent-Authority and after the execution, they would be given their due payment with alacrity.”
“The principle of fairness demands that the State cannot have a ‘win-win’ situation, where it delays payment for years and still discharges only the principal amount, without any consequence or accountability.”
“Once the work has been executed strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the tender and the agreement, the respondents shall be under a clear statutory and contractual obligation to release the due payment without any undue or arbitrary delay.”
“After the execution of work, the respondents shall not be permitted to raise objections pertaining to administrative approvals, sanction of funds, or diversion of funds as grounds to withhold or delay payment.”
These quotes, as highlighted in contemporary coverage like LiveLaw's 2026 report, capture the court's push for "economic justice" in a welfare state.
Victory with Teeth: Directions and Broader Ripples
The writ stands allowed. Respondents must pay ₹7,71,224 within four weeks of receiving the order, petition, and annexures. Default triggers 6% interest from the due date.
This ruling arms contractors with stronger leverage against habitual delays, potentially curbing "paucity of funds" pleas and imposing personal accountability on officers. For Jammu's small firms, it's a beacon: executed work means enforceable dues, no excuses.
