MOHAN C. MENON Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by a former Government Pleader of this Court praying for quashing Ext. P6 and to sanction and disburse the amount due to him as per Ext. P4(a) bill with interest at 18% per annum. The claim in respect of which the dispute arose was in relation to a suit filed as OS No. 208 of 1994 in the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha, filed by Mar Athenaseaus College Association, Kothamangalam. The State Government considered the subject matter to be so important that it chose to entrust the matter with the petitioner to defend the suit on behalf of the Government and this is evident from Ext. P1. For certain preliminary works, such as drafting of the counter affidavit in the Sub Court, etc., and also towards fee for 20 sittings, the petitioner raised a claim for Rs.17,500/-. The petitioner also has a claim for Rs.9,000/- towards drafting memorandum of Civil Revision Petition (CRP No. 2171 of 1994) and sitting fee for three sittings.

(2.) It is seen that he made claims which remained unanswered and apparently on coming to know of the same, the then Advocate General wrote Ext. P3 letter dated 17/07/1995 to the Government recommending that the claim raised by the petitioner be settled as it was a reasonable one according to him. It is seen from his letter that there was a discussion at a meeting convened by the Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department on 08/08/1994 in the presence of other higher officials of the Government when the defence to be made by the State in the suit was decided upon. It is stated that in the meeting 'it was also tacitly decided that regarding the remuneration for the special work, the Government Pleader may send a formal representation to the Government which can be sanctioned'. Proceeding further, the Advocate General had informed the Government that the claim for Rs.7,500/- for the preliminary work and Rs.500/- per sitting raised by the petitioner was reasonable and should be settled. He has also mentioned that the work which was entrusted to the petitioner was an arduous one and consumed much time for its preparation and defence in Court. The other claim made for Rs.9,000/- is also recommended for payment.

(3.) However, without even giving an advertence to the communication of the Advocate General, referring to the various provisions of the Kerala Government Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) and Conduct of Cases Rules, 1978, the claim of the petitioner has been negatived by the Government as per Ext. P6. It is also stated that the proviso to R.31(3) enables the Government to fix fee in a special case taking into consideration the arduous nature of the work and the time spent in the preliminary work. It would appear that the Government has thus declined to extend the benefit of the proviso to R.31(3) and on that basis the claim of the petitioner was negatived.