R G DEVADHAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these petitions, the petitioners were High Court Government Pleaders at the relevant point of time. They have sought for quashing the amendment to the Karnataka Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') effected by the Government Order No. LAW 46 LAG 83, dated 16-4 1983. In some of the petitions, the petitioners have also sought for issue of a direction to the State Government to consider the Bills submitted by them without reference to the aforesaid amendment dated 16th April, 1983 effected to the Rules. The pleas raised by the petitioners are similar, therefore, all these petitions are heard together.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that the Rules govern them and the Rules as they were in force up to 164-1983 provided for a fee of Rs. 100 per Writ Petition irrespective of whether it related to Land Reforms or any other subject ; that by the amendment dated 16-4-1983, the fees in respect of Writ Petitions or Writ Appeals relatable to applications under Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, wherein High Court Government Pleaders have put in appearance on the direction of the High Court and not on the previous authorisation of the Government, is reduced to Rs. 25/- each with retrospective effect from 10th January, 1983 ; that such an amendment is bad in law because the terms of the appointment, even if it is conceded that the appointment is contractual, cannot unilaterally and retrospectively be changed to the disadvantage of High Court Government Pleaders ; that once the case is argued irrespective of the fact, whether the judgment is delivered on the date of argument, the fee payable as per the Rules accrues to them and that becomes a property and it cannot be taken away by an executive order ; that the distinction or classification made between a case where the authorisation is issued and a case where a High Court Government Pleader appears on the direction of the High Court and authorisation is issued subsequently, is neither based on any intelligible differentia nor it has any nexus to the object ; therefore, it is submitted that the amendment effected to Clause 2 of Part-A of Schedule III of the Rules, by the order dated 16th April, 1983 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as such, it is bad in law ; hence it is liable to be quashed.

(3.) On the contrary, it is submitted on behalf of the State by Learned Advocate General that the appointment of the petitioners as High Court Government Pleaders is purely contractual; therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution ; that prior to introduction of Schedule III of the Rules, Law Officer had no right to claim fee for his appearance without the authorisation of the Government ; that under Note 2 to Schedule III of the Rules, Government has the right to fix the remuneration in any case or class of cases, at a rate less than those specified in the schedule at any time even after the case is conducted ; that in the Writ Petitions and Writ Appeals relatable to applications under Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the landlord and the tenant are the contesting parties and the State has no interest; that in such a proceeding, Government's interest is not involved ; that in large number of land reforms cases, Law Officers used to send their bills at the rates specified in the Schedule and at every time the Government had to reduce the fee claimed in their bills after noticing in which of the cases the claim is made ; that whether the matter pertained to Land Reforms or not ; that in order to avoid multiplicity of work in the Department and to make it known to the Law Officers to claim Rs. 25/- in Land Reforms Cases, the impugned amendment is effected, thus the impugned amendment is purely clarificatary since the Government has always discretion under the Rules to reduce the fees claimed by any Law Officer even in the absence of the impugned amendment. It is also the stand taken in the statement of objections that normally general authorisations are not issued by the Government, even where Government Pleaders appear on the direction of the Court, the instructions are specific to the effect that appearance is permitted to defend the Government interest if involved in the case and the verification of involvement of Government interest has to be made either by the Government or the Advocate General. It is further contended that in the absence of authorisation either by Government or instructions by the Advocate General, the Law Officers do not become entitled to any remuneration since they are paid the monthly retainer to appear before the Court where Court directs ; that after receiving the letters from the Law Officers wherein they are directed by the Court to take notice in any case, the Department examines whether Government interest is involved or net in such cases and it is then open to the Government to fix such fees as is deemed fit in the circumstances of the case and in the light of the Rules.