Welfare State should pay those engaged on contract basis for government work without forcing them to demand payment: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently observed that a welfare state is responsible to pay citizens engaged on a contract basis by them, in line with the terms under the contract, without creating a situation where the citizens have to demand such payments [Vishnu & Anr. v State of Kerala & Ors.]..Justice Shaji P Chaly made these observations while hearing a plea in which a contractor was refused payment by the State government on the ground that the time period to make the payment fixed under the Limitation Act had expired.“Above all, in a welfare State, the State has the duty and obligation to protect the interests of its citizens, rather than finding ways and means to defeat their interests and means of livelihood. The scheme of part III of the Constitution of India dealing with ‘fundamental rights’ speaks eloquently of the responsibilities of the State to safeguard the well-being and prosperity of the citizens without fail. Therefore, when a citizen was engaged by the government to carry out one of its activities, it had every duty to reward the person as agreed upon in the contract, even without asking for it,” The judgment said..The present petition was filed by the two sons of the contractor, as the contractor had passed away.The petitioners’ father was a PWD Contractor. The Irrigation Department had awarded some construction work to another PWD contractor, one K Muraleedharan. However, Muraleedharan could not execute the work and, therefore, he executed a power of attorney assigning the work in the name of the petitioner’s father.Accordingly with the permission of the Superintending Engineer of the Irrigation Department, an agreement was executed by the petitioners’ father.The issue arose when the original contractor Muraleedharan was imposed with liability by the Irrigation Department in some other contract. The government attempted to recover the liability of Muraleedharan from the bill amount of the petitioners’ father. Subsequently, the petitioners’ father approached the Munsiff’s Court, seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the government from withholding or adjusting any amount due to the petitioners’ father towards the liability of Muraleedharan. Even though the Munsiff court dismissed the case, the Additional District Court decreed its appeal in favour of the petitioners' father. However, the government only paid a portion of what was claimed by the petitioners' father in the bills submitted by him and said that the rest needed to be adjusted against Muraleedharan's dues.Meanwhile, the government moved an appeal before the High Court and the same was later dismissed, effectively upholding the Additional District Court's order of prohibitory injunction restraining the government from realising the amounts from the bill submitted by the petitioners’ father towards the liability of Muraleedharan.Thereafter, the father of the petitioners died, and consequently, the amount became due to the petitioners being successors in interest.This prompted the petitioners to approach the High Court with the present plea seeking a direction to the Irrigation Department to disburse an amount of ₹7,50,758 to the petitioners in connection with the contract work carried out by their father. The petitioner also sought an interest of 12 percent per annum on the amount.The Irrigation Departments in their counter affidavit admitted the facts and figures, but they submitted that the claim raised by the petitioner was barred by the law of limitation..The Court, however, said that the government's action in adjusting the dues of Muraleedharan for some other work from the money due to the petitioners father who had executed the contract work to the government's satisfaction, was illegal and arbitrary.“The principles of law evolved by the Apex Court and this Court would make it clear that the State government, in the guise of the period of limitation, cannot evade its responsibility to pay the amount due to the petitioners’ father, who undertook the contract work when the previous contractor Sri. K Muraleedharan failed to carry out the contract. Moreover, when a civil court passed an order of prohibitory injunction restraining the State and its officials by permanent prohibitory injunction from adjusting the amount due to the petitioner’s father, there was an onerous responsibility to the State to pay the amount to the petitioners,” the Court said in its order.Thereafter, the Court directed the irrigation department to pay the balance amount due to the petitioners within 6 weeks failing which they will have to pay the same with an interest at 9% per annum. .Advocates T Rajasekharan Nair and Ajith Krishnan represented the petitioners.Senior Government Pleader Deepa Narayanan appeared for the respondent-State government..[Read Judgment].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.