[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Sarat Kumar Samal vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 8 April, 2026
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.36306 of 2025
Sarat Kumar Samal .... Petitioner
Mr. Prabodha Chandra Nayak, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Ms. Biswabara Dash, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
Order No. 08.04.2026
01. 1. The petitioner being emerged successful in connection with
the tender call notice dated 25th March, 2022 invited by the
Chief Construction Engineer, Rural Works Circle,
Balasore-opposite party no.3, an agreement bearing
No.04/P-1 of 2022-23 has been executed on 4th June, 2022
indicating date of commencement of work as 4th June, 2022
with stipulation as to completion on 3rd May, 2023. The
petitioner completed the work in all respect on 31st March,
2023, which was intimated to the Superintending Engineer,
Rural Works Division, Jaleswar on 3rd May, 2023. By letter
dated 4th April, 2023, the Superintending Engineer, Rural
Works Division, Jaleswar communicated the fact of
completion of work in all respect on 31st March, 2023,
which is one month three days before the stipulated date of
completion as per agreement to the Chief Construction
Engineer, Rural Works Circle, Balasore.
1.1. The Chief Construction Engineer, Rural Works Circle,
Balasore issued Letter No.3491, dated 16th August, 2023
addressed to the Chief Engineer (Roads), Rural Works,
Odisha, Bhubaneswar stating as follows:
"The work has been completed in all respect earlier before
10% of contract period (i.e. 1 month 3 days against 11
months) and thus eligible for incentive on early completion
of project @ of 2% of contract value.
As such it is requested to consider the incentive proposal as
per Clause 1.11 DTCN & Amendment 2016 Vol-I of
O.P.W.D. This is for favour of kind information and
necessary action."
1.2. Despite such information given to the Chief Engineer
(Roads), Rural Works, Odisha, Bhubaneswar, the petitioner
being not accorded with the legitimate claim in terms of
Clause 1.11 of the Detailed Tender Call Notice (DTCN)
and Paragraph 3.5.5(V) of Note-III of OPWD Code
(Volume-I) as amended by virtue of Office Memorandum
File No.07556900032016-5288/W, dated 4th May, 2016
issued by the Government of Odisha in Works Department,
the petitioner has come up before this Court by way of
filing this writ petition invoking provisions under Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following
prayer(s):
"It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may graciously be pleased to
I. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus in directing the
Opp. Party No.2-Chief Engineer (Roads), Rural Works,
Odisha to forthwith approve the petitioner's incentive
dues under Clause 1.11 of the DTCN, strictly in terms of
the recommendations of the Chief Construction
Engineer, Opp. Party No.3 dated 16.08.2023 (Annexure-
5) and the Superintending Engineer, Opp. Party No.4
dated 04.04.2023 (Annexure-4), and thereafter to ensure
release of the incentive amount @ 2% of the contract
value for the work Improvement Daxin Teghari High
School PWD road to Bindhapadmapur-Talsari road via
Ranibasan and Krushnanagar road under MMSY for the
year 2021-22 within a time to be stipulated by this
Hon'ble Court;
II. Issue direction to the Opposite Parties to pay interest
12% per annum (or at such rate as this Hon'ble Court
deems just and proper) on the eligible incentive amount,
from 31.03.2023 (the actual date of completion of work)
till the date of actual payment;
III. The unexplained and prolonged delay in processing and
approving the petitioner's incentive dues shall be
declared arbitrary, unreasonable, mala fide in law and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India;
IV. Any other writ, order or direction may be issued as this
Hon'ble Coat deems fit, just, equitable, proper and
necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.
V. And in this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty
bound every pray."
2. As the document forming part of writ petition evince the
aforesaid undisputed facts, it is felt necessary to dispose of
the writ petition as keeping the matter pending would not
subserve any fruitful purpose.
3. Learned Additional Standing Counsel having appeared for
opposite parties, waives issue of notice as advance copy of
the writ petition had already been served upon her on 9th
December, 2025.
4. Perusal of the documents enclosed with the writ petition, it
is revealed that Clause 1.11 of the DTCN entitles the
petitioner to avail the incentive as follows:
"1.11. 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
Superintending Engineers/Executive Engineers 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, Engineer-in-Chief & the Administrative
Department."
4.1. Paragraph 3.5.5(V) of Note-III of OPWD Code (Volume-I)
as amended by Office Memorandum dated 4th May, 2016
reads as follows:
"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. ***"
4.2. Letters of Superintending Engineer dated 4th April, 2023
(Annexure-4) and the Chief Engineer (Roads), Rural
Works Circle, Balasore dated 16th August, 2023
(Anneuxre-5) addressed to the Chief Engineer (Roads)
Rural Works, Odisha, Bhubaneswar unequivocally reflects
that the work entrusted to the petitioner was completed in
all respect before 31st March, 2023, i.e., around one month
three days before the stipulated date of completion. Since
the work was completed much ahead of date so stipulated,
i.e., 3rd May, 2023 as per agreement dated 4th June, 2022,
the petitioner is entitled to claim incentive as envisaged in
Clause 1.11 of the DTCN and in terms of Paragraph 3.5.5
(V) of Note-III of the OPWD Code (Volume-I).
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to
and cited order dated 18th March, 2021 passed in the case of
Jayram Pujahari vs. State of Odisha and others, WP(C)
No.30637 of 2020, wherein the following has been
observed:
"6. *** Thus, timely intimation of completion of the
project by the concerned Executive Engineer is a
mandatory requirement under the aforesaid provision
in order to avail incentive by the Contractor for early
completion of the Project. The report that regard has
to be intimated within a period of seven days from the
date of completion of the project. Admittedly, the
intimation was not sent by the Executive Engineer
within the stipulated period of seven days. There is
also no allegation that the Petitioner has contributed
to such delay in intimation. In view of the ratio in
Prafulla Kumar Pradhan vs. State of Odisha, 2017
(I) ILR-CUT-381, the Petitioner cannot be faulted
with for the delay in communication of the
completion report by the Executive Engineer. The
Petitioner cannot be made to suffer for no fault on his
part, particularly when the authorities have accepted
the fact that the Project was completed prior to the
stipulated date.
7. In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation to
set aside the order dated 20th August, 2020
(Annexure-1) passed by the Commissioner-cum-
Secretary, Works Department, Government of
Odisha, Bhubaneswar (OP No.1) in refusing the
claim of the petitioner for grant of incentive."
5.1. It is submitted that the said order was carried before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by the State of Odisha in
SLP (C) No.12359 of 2021, which came to be disposed of
vide order dated 5th April, 2023 with the following
observation(s):
"Learned counsel for the petitioner-State made a statement
before us in compliance of our order dated 19.08.2021 &
17.09.2021, the Government of Orissa has conducted the
enquiry as directed and the report has been placed on the
record of the case and a SOP has also been notified on
03.03.2022. Additional affidavit is taken on record. The SOP
having been finalised, the same would govern the timely
completion of project and the grant of incentive for the same.
However, in so far as the present case is concerned, we see no
good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the
High Court and as such, the special leave petition, in so far as
the challenge to the impugned order is concerned, stands
dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of."
5.2. Against the denial of incentive under the above Paragraph
of the OPWD Code, where the work entrusted to the
petitioner in Sairaj Dalai Vs. State of Odisha and others,
WP(C) No.15195 of 2025 got completed before the
stipulated date as per agreement, vide order dated 8th April,
2026 held as follows:
"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 within
seven days therefrom.
6. It is improbable and inconceivable that a person or the
authority would reap the benefit of his own wrong and
deny the just and equitable claim on such score. We fail
to find any words or the expressions from the said Clause
as quoted above that makes it imperative on the part of
the contractor to approach the authority by making an
application but it conveys a clear and laudable message
that it is obligatory on the part of the authority concerned
to report through such modes within the time stipulated
therein. If the authority has committed a mistake or his
conduct indicates some lapses and negligence on his part
in not reporting the date of completion of the entire
project, the contractor who should be incentivized by
virtue of said Clause-34 should not be penalized.
7. Simply on the equitable principle that a person cannot
reap the benefit from his own wrong, the authority on
account of his lapses cannot deny the legitimate claim
shifting the lapses to the shoulder of the contractor. The
contractor who completed the work before handed cannot
be denied such beneficial piece of the Clause which gives
incentives to him who has diligently executed the work to
the satisfaction of the authority.
8. We, thus, do not find that the authority can take
advantage of his own lapses and/or wrong committed by
him as a weapon to deny the just and equitable claim
accrued to the petitioner in terms of such Clause-34 and,
therefore, the order of rejection dated 8th November,
2024 is hereby quashed and set aside."
6. The letters dated 4th May, 2023 and 16th August, 2023 vide
Annexure-4 and 5 respectively as referred to above clinch
that the work entrusted to the petitioner has been completed
one month and three days ahead of stipulated date of
completion, i.e., 3rd May, 2023 as per agreement dated 4th
June, 2022 (Annexure-1). The learned Additional Standing
Counsel having not impeached such letters of the
Superintending Engineer and the Chief Construction
Engineer having admitted commencement of works on 4th
June, 2022 and completion thereof on 31st March, 2023, the
legitimate claim of the petitioner cannot, thus, be denied or
delayed in view of the clarified position as set forth in the
aforesaid decisions.
6.1. It is, therefore, felt expedient to direct the Chief Engineer
(Roads), Rural Works, Odisha, Bhubaneswar to take a
decision on the recommendation made to him by the Chief
Construction Engineer, Rural Works Circle, Balasore vide
Letter No.3491, dated 16th August, 2023 within a period of
two weeks from receipt of copy of this order in the light of
discussions made supra and communicate the result thereof
to the petitioner forthwith.
7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ
petition stands disposed of; and pending Interlocutory
Application (s), if any, shall also be disposed of.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
MRS/Laxmikant
Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA
Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 09-Apr-2026 13:29:44
