HARI RAM DUBEY Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 10.3.1999 passed by District Consumer Forum, Sultanpur in Complaint Case No.320/ 1996. Since the subject-matter contained in the complaint case is the same in respect of the two appeals, these have been taken up together for adjudication.

(2.) Appeal No.908/99 has been filed by the complainant Hari Ram Dubey, Advocate, against the judgment and order dated 10.3.1999 passed by the District Consumer Forum in Complaint Case No.320/96. The facts of the case as stated in the complaint are as follows.

(3.) Sri. Hari Ram Dubey, Advocate, was appointed by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur as a Panel Lawyer to conduct the Gaon Sabha cases in Consolidation Courts. The complainant has been working as such since the year 1987. In the District of Sultanpur large number of cases were also pending for disposal in the Civil Court. Therefore, the complainant was appointed on 25.3.1992 to conduct the cases pending in the Civil Court also on behalf of the Gaon Sabha. Fee for conducting the cases of Gaon Sabha in Civil Court as well as in Consolidation Courts was to be paid out of the fund of Gaon Sabha. The complainant after attending the cases in Civil Court as per orders of the District Magistrate, represented to the District Magistrate that Counsel's fee in regard to the cases conducted in the Civil Court should be as per the rates being given to the Counsel of the rank of Assistant District Government Counsel (A. D. G. C. ). The District Magistrate instead of sanctioning the fee as applicable to the A. D. G. C. referred the matter to the Government and later on ordered that the fee payable to the complainant will be as per provision laid down under the Rules made under U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The said fee was only Rs.10/- per case. The Government also directed the District Magistrate to stop this adhoc arrangement and take appropriate action for appointing a regular A. D. G. C. The complainant thereupon represented several times to the District Magistrate that he be given the fee of the cases conducted by him at par with A. D. G. C. The fee fixed for A. D. G. C. was as per Para 585 of the General Rules (Civil) but later on by a Government Order in 1990 a provision for payment of fee to the Counsel working as Panel Lawyer and also conducting cases in the Civil Court was made and fee was to be paid as admissible to A. D. G. C. The complainant was, therefore, entitled to the fee which was payable to the Civil Court's Government Counsel. It was also stated that one Sukhdev Prasad Pandey, Advocate had also been given the same facility who was also appointed as a Panel Lawyer for the Gaon Sabha but in his case discrimination has been made and the principle of equal pay for equal work has been ignored. The District Government Counsel had recommended a fee of Rs.125/- per day to be paid to the complainant but in spite of that no payment has been made. A complaint was, therefore, lodged with the District Consumer Forum for claim of Rs.1,37,350/- being the fee for 737 working days along with interest @ 18% p. a. In addition an amount of Rs.50,000/- was also claimed for mental harassment and physical torture. Professional loss of Rs.1,000/- per month from 1992 was also claimed along with cost of proceedings.