INDU MEHTA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KM. Indu Mehta, an Advocate practising at District Court, Kanpur, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 21st May, 1985 endorsed to her by the Additional District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat vide communication dated 28th May, 1985, consequential orders of District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat dated 7th June, 1985 and 3rd April, 1986, true copies whereof have been appended to her petition as Annexure'II', TV', and 'V, has approached this court for redressal under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE fact, in brief, giving rise to the controversy raised in the instant petition are as follows :- THE petitioner was initially appointed as a panel lawyer (Criminal) in the year 1979. THEreafter, in May, 1980 she was appointed as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal) for the district of Kanpur Dehat and took over the charge of the said assignment on 16th June, 1980. In the year 1982 the post of Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), formerly held by one Sri Brij Mohan Kaul, fell vacant. To fill up the aforesaid vacancy the candidature of several Advocates was under consideration by the District Judge, Non-metropolitan area, Kanpur and the District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat. In the list of the candidates prepared by the District Judge, Non-metropolitan area, Kanpur the name of the petitioner was at the top. THE District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat, also concurred with the recommendation of the District Judge and recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), Kanpur Dehat by means of his letter dated 31st December, 1982, addressed to the Deputy Legal Remembrancer, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Nyaya Mantrana Anubhag, Lucknow, a true copy whereof is Annexure 'I' to the petition. In the concluding part of this letter it is stated that Km. Indu Mehta would function as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), Non- metropolitan area, Kanpur in anticipation of the approval and till final orders were passed by the Government. A copy of this letter was endorsed to the petitioner also for information and necessary action. In pursuance of the aforesaid communication of the District Magistrate, the petitioner took over as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal) for Kanpur Dehat and worked as such during the period between 1st January, 1983 and 30th April, 1985. After 30th April, 1985 the petitioner resumed back her initial assignment of a panel lawyer and is continuing in that capacity. For the period she worked as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), Kanpur Dehat, the petitioner was paid her fee at the rate of Rs. 38/- per day, a rate which is admissible to the Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal).

(3.) AS a follow up measure, the District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat, passed an order dated 7th June, 1985 (Annexure IV to the petition), purporting to inform the District Government Counsel (Criminal), Kanpur Dehat, of the cancellation of the order of appointment of the petitioner as ASsistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), by the Governor and calling upon him to apprise the petitioner that from the fee already received by her for the work done as ASsistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), in the vacancy of Sri Brij Mohan Kaul, she would have to refund excess payment at the rate of Rs. 8/- per day which she should immediately deposit with the office of the District Magistrate so that the Government could be informed to the same accordingly.