RAMBABU SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel. This order shall govern disposal of M.P. Nos. 260 and 272 of 1988. Petitioners are advocates of this Court, who have made a common grievance against the State as well as the District Excise Officer and the Collector, Gwalior.

(2.) We do not doubt that the grievance has a constitutional complexion in that the petitioner is entitled to invoke the provisions of Arts.21 and 23 of the Constitution to complain that for the services rendered, even agreed recompense is denied to each of them. In both cases, the material document on which claim is based is the letter dt. 24-5-1986 addressed by the Under Secretary to Government of Madhya Pradesh, Separate Revenue Department to the Excise Commissioner, M.P., Gwalior. By that letter, appointment of advocates for conducting cases on behalf of the Department was contemplated and fees for services to be rendered by them was fixed at the rate of Rs. 25/- per case. That much is admitted. What is only disputed is the meaning to be attributed to the expression "Sampurna Karyavahi Hone Tak". Both petitioners, it is admitted in the return, have only been paid their fees for cases which were handled by them and were disposed of. It is also admitted by the respondents that no fees have been paid to the petitioners for cases which have not been disposed of though the petitioners appeared in the cases in respect of which claim is made in the petition and had taken steps in those cases for certain dates. The justification for denial of the fees to the petitioners has amazed us. It is not that the petitioners had refused to act or conduct the proceedings or that they were negligent or that they had given up the brief. The fact rather is that the briefs were taken away from them because of policy decision of the Government that private counsel are not to be engaged in conducting excise cases as a prosecution Directorate had come into being. We do not think if that policy decision could affect the pending assignments; such decision could only be prospective. Advocates are not to be treated like daily wage-earners, to be dismissed at the whims and caprice of a person even if such a person be the State or functionary of the State. A counsel can be denied the agreed fees only when he makes default or is guilty of any misconduct.

(3.) We are very clear in our mind that a totally hopeless and worthless justification has been set out by the respondents to deny what is constitutionally and rightfully due to the petitioners. Both petitioners are entitled to be paid fees in all the cases in which they had appeared and they had conducted for some time even if they had appeared for a single day in any of the cases. We accordingly hold that the claim of the petitioners has been illegally and unconstitutionally rebuffed and that action of the respondents cannot be countenanced. We hold that the petitioner Rambabu Sharma in M.P. No. 260 of 1988 is entitled to be paid his agreed fees at the rate of Rs. 25/- per case for all the 344 cases in which he had appeared and which he had conducted till briefs of 304 cases were taken away from him. The petitioner has admitted that he has been paid for 40 cases and accordingly, we hold that he is entitled to be paid fees for the remaining 304 cases and we direct accordingly that he shall be paid the amount due to him for conducting 304 cases at the rate of Rs. 25/- per case. In so far as the other petitioner Shri Ram Babu Tiwari is concerned, he has been paid fees for only 43 cases though he had appeared and conducted 390 cases. Accordingly, we hold that he has to be paid for the remaining 347 cases at the rate of Rs. 25/- per case and that payment shall be made to him.