JAMEELA IBRAHIM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an advocate practising before the courts at Quilon. She was appointed as the Government Pleader and Public prosecutor by the State Government for Quilon District for conducting cases for and on behalf of the State of Kerala . Apart from the Criminal and Civil cases, for and on behalf of the State, she has to represent the State Government on its various Departments, before the tribunals or quasi-judicial authorities.

(2.) IT i s the case that she was directed on behalf of the state to conduct certain Motor Accident Claims filed before the Motor Accident claims Tribunal at Quilon. While passing the awards, the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal had fixed the advocate fees to be paid in respect of those cases in the award itself. But when she applied for payment of the said amount fixed by the Tribunal, the same was declined by the respondents on the basis of Ext. P1 letter dated 17-8-1988, issued by the District Collector, Quilon to the petitioner, wherein it is stated that the Government in their Circular no. 7621/b3/ 86/law dated 1-8-1988 had ordered that the advocates who appear before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Labour Tribunal are entitled to get fees as per item 17 of R. 32 of the Kerala Government Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of service) and Conduct of Cases Rules, 1978. She was, therefore, directed to prefer a fresh claim as laid down in the above Rule duly signed by the presiding officer of the Court.

(3.) ON behalf of respondents 1 and 2, a counter affidavit has been filed in the case wherein it is stated by the respondents that the petitioner was appointed as a District Government Pleader, Quilon for conducting Government cases. Rule 32 of the Kerala Government Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of service) and Conduct of Cases Rules, 1978 deals with the duties of Government Law Officers at the District Court, Additional district Court and Sub-Court Centres. Items 10,11, 12,13 and 21 of the said rules have subsequently been amended by the Government as per G. O. (P) No. 58/87/law dated 24-2-1987 enhancing the rate of remuneration. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that item No. 17 under R. 32 provides the rate of fee for appearance before the Tribunal such as Income-tax Tribunal, Sales-tax Tribunal, etc. Item 21 relates to the rate of fee for cases not specifically provides for any of the items. According to the respondents, Item No. 17 specifies the rate of fee for appearance before the Tribunals generally and the mention of Income tax Tribunal, Sales Tax Tribunal, etc. " therein is intended only to indicate certain example and they are only illustrative, and not exhaustive. Since the item is not exhaustive, Government as per Circular No. 7621/b3/86/law dated 1-8-1988 have clarified that the Government Law Officers fee for appearance before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Labour Tribunals shall be in accordance with item 17 of R. 32 of the Rules mentioned above. Since the fee for appearance before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is specifically provided in item 17 as per the Circular referred to above dated 1-8-1988, no Government pleader is entitled to claim fee for such appearance as per the provisions in item No. 21.