A. THIRUMURTHY Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts and circumstances of the case in filing the Writ Petition are stated hereunder:

(2.) Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there was a dispute in regard to payment of individual fees in a batch of Writ Appeals filed by the petitioner. According to him, individual writ appeal has to be filed in respect of batch of writ petitions allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Bench. The petitioner being an Advocate has to adopt proper procedure and had to file as many writ appeals as the number of Writ Petitions allowed by the Single Judge and this was objected to by the university on the ground that the petitioner ought to have filed a single writ appeal. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the university had not realized that when orders were passed individually in Writ Petitions, single Writ Appeal cannot be filed and each Writ Petition had to be appealed against separately. Besides, the learned Senior Counsel pointed out that there was a difference of opinion as between the petitioner and the university officials in regard to payment of fees to the petitioner. In view of the difference of opinion and understanding, the actual fee payable as claimed by the petitioner to the tune of Rs.10,49,689/- (Rupees ten lakhs, forty nine thousand, six hundred and eighty nine only) has not been paid for the total period when the petitioner's services were engaged by the university.

(3.) The stand of the university is, it is not inclined to honouring the payment due to the petitioner despite the petitioner incurring expenses towards filing of a batch of writ appeals and also appearance fees commensurate with his standing at the bar and his long experience, by equating his status as that of Additional Advocate General. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the petitioner being an Advocate having enrolled in 1977 and has been practicing in the High Court ought to have been treated as equal to the rank of Additional Advocate General. When he was appointed as a panel Advocate, in fact, he was given to understand that he would be accorded due status and appearance fees would be paid accordingly. But, the university officials have gone back from the understanding and started disputing the fees claimed by the petitioner under some pretext or the other and reduced the professional engagement of the petitioner into a needless controversy of not sanctioning the bills submitted by the petitioner.