- (1.) Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent and perused the record.
(2.) Petitioner's claim is that in respect of work performed by him, he is entitled for recovery of Rs.2,29,765.16 but his claim has been rejected by respondent-1 vide order dated 31.7.2000.
(3.) Basically writ petition is for recovery of money therefore, in effect, it is a suit for recovery of money and since claim of petitioner is not an admitted claim as it has already been rejected by respondent-1 vide order dated 31.7.2000, we do not find that writ petition is maintainable hence petitioner has remedy in common law.;