Govt Cannot Keep Disaster Restoration Workers Waiting Indefinitely For Admitted Dues Over Inter-Departmental Delays: J&K&L High Court
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that the State cannot indefinitely withhold payment of admitted dues to persons who executed restoration works during a natural disaster merely because of pending inter-departmental formalities or non-release of funds under the State Disaster Response Fund (SDRF).
Observing that citizens who respond to the Government's call for restoration of essential public services cannot be made to suffer for administrative lapses, the Court directed the authorities to release the outstanding payments along with interest.
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by Mohammad Ishaq Najar and other petitioners seeking payment for restoration works executed on damaged Public Health Engineering (PHE) pipelines and drinking water schemes in various sub-divisions of District Baramulla after torrential rains between 4 and 8 April 2017.
The petitioners contended that although the works had been completed, repeatedly verified and their claims consistently acknowledged by the authorities, payment had remained withheld for years on account of delays in release of SDRF funds.
A Bench of Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani, while allowing the petition, observed,
“…Sometimes some government works like the one involved in this case, being of essential services cannot be allowed to brook any delay. When work is allotted for immediate execution or services are availed with promptitude, the due claim also needs to be cleared with same force”
The High Court observed that the respondents had unequivocally admitted both the execution of the restoration works and their liability to make payment. The only explanation offered for withholding the dues was the non-release of SDRF funds by the concerned authorities.
The Court noted that the supplementary affidavit filed by the PHE Department categorically established that the petitioners' works had been verified by the competent authorities and that the restoration works had been executed strictly in accordance with SDRF norms. The communications placed on record further demonstrated that every technical query raised during the process of seeking funds had already been answered by the concerned departments, the court said
The Bench held that once the Government chooses to utilise the services of citizens for execution of public works, particularly during a disaster requiring immediate restoration of essential services, it cannot subsequently deny them payment on account of internal administrative issues. The Court observed,
"Once, some work is undertaken by the Government, after allotment of execution of the same or by utilizing the services/manpower, as the case may be, the person(s) who bonafidely volunteer for such execution/services cannot be denied the legitimate payment, on account some-technical issues involved or some formality to be completed."
Emphasising governmental accountability, the Court held that responsibility for discharging legitimate liabilities rests with the State and cannot be avoided because of changes in officers or pending departmental formalities. The Bench observed,
"The responsibility to account for due and legitimate liability is always of a Department/office of the Government and the shifting of officers/officials concerned shall not become a cause of delay in the process and disbursement of any legitimate claim."
The Court further remarked that irresponsible conduct on the part of public officials adversely impacts public administration and is particularly unacceptable where restoration of essential services is undertaken during emergencies.
Reiterating the importance of timely payments, the Court remarked,
"The delayed payments of the due claims burdens the state with interest component."
The Bench also took note of the petitioners' allegation that contractors in other districts had already received payment for similar SDRF works, whereas the petitioners continued to remain unpaid despite repeated admissions of liability. It observed that such inaction had the effect of infringing the petitioners' rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Allowing the writ petition, the Court directed the respondents to release the admitted payments. The Court further awarded interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 8 June 2021, the date of filing of the writ petition, until final payment.
The Court also directed the concerned authorities, including the Director, Disaster Management, Divisional Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, Superintendent Engineer and Executive Engineer, to coordinate the release of funds and ensure disbursement of the admitted dues within six weeks.
Case Title: Mohammad Ishaq Najar & Ors. v. Union Territory of J&K & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 290