The main legal point established in the judgment is the discriminatory effect of the Government Resolution dated 01st June, 2016, and the disparity in fees payable to different categories of Law Officers, emphasizing the retrospective application of the G.R. and its discriminatory nature.

Vibha Kankanwadi, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally.

2. Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this court under Articles 14 and 226 of the Constitution of India, in order to challenge the Government Resolution [For short, "G.R."] dated 01st June, 2016 issued by the Law & Judiciary Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai, which stipulates the exclusion of condition regarding outer limit of fees payable to Law Officers in Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal [For short, "MAT"] to be made applicable from 01st June, 2016.

3. Petitioners are practicing advocates. Their tenure as Chief Presenting Officer [For short, "CPO"] and Presenting Officers [For short, "POs"] expired in June, 2016. The Government of Maharashtra framed rules, namely, 'Maharashtra Law Officers (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Remuneration) Rules, 1984'. These rules provide for appointment of Law Officers in various courts including High Court and MAT. The rules regulate the functions and duties of Law Officers and also provide for rate of fees payable to them. Petitioners were appointed as Presenting Officers to represent the Government before MAT at Aurangabad in the year 2001 and their appointments were continued from time to time by issuing orders.

4. The fees structure for payment of fees was revised which was framed under the above said rules from time to time. The fees structure was revised under Government Resolution dated 11th October, 2013 and revision of rates of fees made under the said G.R. were made applicable with effect from 01st November, 2013. Different fees structure for the Law Officers working in different courts was decided by the Government including the Chief Presenting Officer and Presenting Officers working in MAT. It was mentioned in statement 'B' of the said G.R. that, prescribed daily ceiling of cap will be of Rs. 4,000/- for CPOs and Rs. 3,000/- for POs. The outer limit of monthly ceiling of cap of Rs. 65,000/- for CPOs and Rs. 60,000/- for POs was also mentioned in statement 'B' in G.R. dated 11th October, 2013. However, drafting and retainer fee was excluded from such ceiling of cap. Said G.R. also included the fees prescribed for Government Pleader, 'A' Panel Counsel, Additional Government Pleaders and Assistant Government Pleaders and 'B' Panel Counsel in the High Court (Original Side & Appellate Side), Mumbai and its Benches at Nagpur and Aurangabad. Fees payable to the Law Officers and Panel Counsel in the State of Maharashtra was revised by issuing G.R. dated 15th February, 2014.

5. Statement 'B' in the said G.R. relates to the prescription of fees payable to CPOs and POs of MAT at Mumbai and its Benches at Nagpur and Aurangabad. Fees was revised and increased substantially and according to note no.05, a quarterly outer limit was placed which prescribed for Rs. 2,70,000/- for CPOs and Rs. 2,10,000/- for POs. No corresponding change to meet the situation was contemplated under note no.05, but the daily ceiling/cap on fees of Rs. 4,000/- and Rs. 3,000/- for CPOs and POs, respectively remained the same. However, statement 'C' which was in relation to the fees to the Government Pleaders, etc. in the High Court did not mention any daily ceiling/cap. Only quarterly ceiling/cap was made applicable to them.

6. The disparity in fees payable to the Government Pleaders/Addl. Government Pleaders working in the High Court and the CPOs and POs working in the MAT, so far as it relates to exclusion of daily ceiling/cap was noticed by the petitioners and, therefore, they immediately made a representation to the 1st respondent on 26th March, 2014. The said disparity was brought to the notice of the Government and the 1st respondent was requested to issue corrigendum to do away with the disparity. After great persuasion, Law & Judiciary Department took necessary steps to correct the mistake. Office note was put in favour of the representation by the Law & Judiciary Department and thereaf