LAWS(HPH)-1994-11-19

INDER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Decided On November 11, 1994
INDER SINGH Appellant
V/S
Union of India And Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is the Advocate General for the State of Himachal Pradesh from 24th December, 1992. In the past also, he had been Advocate General from 28th February, 1980 to 8th April, 1983 and from 17th March, 1989 to 1st March, 1990. His grievance is that the Respondents are not paying his professional fee for the cases he conducted as Advocate General on behalf of Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

(2.) According to the Petitioner, the fee of Advocate General of Himachal 'Pradesh is regulated by the Rules known as 'Rules for Regulating the Remuneration and Duties of the Advocate General Rules, 1971. Rule 6 of these Rules provides as under:

(3.) According to the practice of the Advocate General's office and the notification dated 22-12-1983, one-third of the fee of the case is paid to the Advocate General through whom the case is admitted and the remaining two-third to the Advocate General through whom the case is finally decided. The Respondent requested the third Respondent to conduct these cases through the Petitioner who was Advocate General at that time. Therefore, these cases were conducted by the Petitioner as Advocate General of Respondent No. 3 and not as a private Counsel. In this way, the Petitioner conducted large number of cases (Annexures P-l, P-2, P-3 and P-4). Consequently, detailed fee bills were submitted to the Respondents on various dates like 3rd April, 1992 (Annexures P-1, P-2 and P-3) and 29th March, 1993 (Annexure P-4), claiming an amount of Rs. 89,264/-. These bills remained unpaid for sufficient long time. Through communication (Annexure P-5), the Respondents intimated the Petitioner that he was entitled to Counsel-fee as per Punjab law Department Manual. As a matter of fact, the Punjab Law Department Manual has nothing to do with the Petitioner's fee since he was entitled to fee in accordance with 'Rules for Regulating the Remuneration and Duties of the Advocate General Rules, 1971, further clarified by the third Respondent in the communication dated 22nd December, 1983 (Annexure P-6). Accordingly, two-third of the fee in cases mentioned in bills (Annexures P-1 to P-4) had already been paid to different Advocates General who had finally argued the cases and this two-third fee was calculated and paid on the basis of the Rules stated above. On earlier occasions also, the Respondents had made the payment of fee on the basis of these Rules except in cases covered by CWP No. 534 of 86 where the fee was paid on the basis of a compromise between the parties. The Respondents are raising the dispute only with respect to one-third of the fee. The Petitioner is entitled to his professional fee, claimed through the bills mentioned hereinabove, in accordance with the Rules applicable to him. The Punjab Law Department Manual and the settlement arrived at in CWP No. 534 of 86 do not apply to these bills since this compromise was confined to cases involved in that writ petition.