Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. The petitioner who retired as a Director General of Anthropological Survey of India, is stated to be renowned expert in his field. The petitioner after his retirement in March, 1993, worked as a Consultant with the UOI on the project People of India, which had been commenced by the petitioner, prior to his retirement.

2. In the present writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that after his retirement, he was engaged as Consultant by the UOI and he continued to work in that position for completion of the project. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner being a renowned world expert in his field was totally committed to complete this prestigious project for the country. He therefore, wholeheartedly kept on working on this project, at the behest of the respondents with their full knowledge and consent. The respondents in recognition of the same, entered into a consultancy arrangement which was upto September, 1994. The petitioner, according to the Counsel nevertheless continued to work on the project beyond September, 1994.

3. The petitioner in the present writ petition has set up a pecuniary claim totalling Rs. 7,29,800 claiming consultancy charges, transportation, telephone, house rent allowance etc. for the period commencing 1.10.1994 till the date of filing of the petition. The claim in the petition is a pecuniary claim simplicitor. Learned Counsel for the respondent raises a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the Court would not entertain a claim of a pecuniary nature in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. Secondly learned Counsel submits that the contract for consultancy was last renewed upto September, 1994, for which the petitioner has been duly paid.

4. Learned Counsel urges that in case the petitioner does not complete the project within the consultancy period and has to work beyond the period then the respondent cannot be made responsible for payment. Further it is stated that there is no contract or consultancy arrangement entered into with the petitioner for the period subsequent to 1994. Counsel urges that though the work running into 43 volumes was the collective effort of the numerous scholars of the petitioner claimed the authorship individually as Director General and accordingly benefitted in receiving a claim. Learned Counsel for Anthropoligical Survey of India, the petitioner on the other hand relied on communication appearing at page 81 of the petition, wherein the Joint Secretary had asked the petitioner to come for a meeting so that these matters could be discussed and the resolution reached, with regard to petitioners claim for working after the expiry of the consultancy period.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also urged that having regard to the nature of the work carried out and the position held by the petitioner, he was even granted housing accommodation during the period of consultancy and was allowed to, retain the same upto February, 1995, i.e. after the expiry of consultancy period. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on Century Spinning and Manufacturing Company Ltd. and Anr.v.The Ulhasnagar Municipal Council and Anr., 1970 (1) SCC 582 , [LQ/SC/1970/91] in support of his contention, that the Court ought to entertain the writ petition even if factual questions and aspects were involved. Learned Counsel also urged that prior to his retirement, the petitioner was offered assignments with the World Bank etc., which he did not accept and accordingly suffered to his prejudice on this account and the respondents are bound to compensate him.

6. Having considered the matter and the rival contentions as noted above, I am of the view that in ultimate analysis, there is no escape from the hard reality that in substance the claim is a pecuniary one simplicitor, which cannot be entertained in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also not without significance that there is no extension of consultancy arrangement entered into for the post September, 1994 period.

7. The adjudication of the petitioners claim of necessity involves disputed questions of determination of rates for compensation for work claimed to have been done and incidental charges for telephone, travel, transportation etc. These would be outside the domain of writ jurisdiction and can be determined only in the Civil Fourm.

8. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. It would be open for the petition to avail of such remedies as admissible at law.