Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 1449
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. DHANAPALAN & M. DURAISWAMY, JJ.
The Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Chennai & Others – Appellant
Versus
V. Bhavani Subbaroyan - Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 2167 of 2013 & M.P. Nos. 1 of 2013 & 1 of 2014
Decided On : 26-03-2015
For the Appellants:P.H. Aravind Pandian, AAG V Assisted by S. Rajeswaran, Spl. Govt. Pleader, C.V. Shailandhaan, Govt. Advocate.
For the Respondent:K.M. Vijayan, Sr. Counsel for K.V. Sajeev Kumar for M/s. Royan Law Associates, Advocates.
Headnote:
Advocates Act - section 34 - Remaining four pending matters – Claim of compensation - After tendering her resignation respondent sent a representation seeking sanction of the above bills and in spite of receipt of same by third appellant no action was taken - Therefore respondent sent a reminder stating that she would claim interest at rate per annum till the date of actual payment. Subsequently respondent sent another reminder and even for that she did not receive any response from third appellant - It is pertinent to note that the respondent resigned her post on - She was appearing before this court representing Government and the Government Officials in her capacity as Special Government Pleader – Held, It is needless to say that under section 2(ii) of High Court Rules, the concerned Government Advocate who assisted the Special Government Pleader or the Additional Government Pleader is entitled to claim 1/3rd fee separately – Therefore court are of the considered view that the respondent is entitled to claim her professional fee in respect of the four pending matters only after the disposal of the said matters - As per Rule 9-A, she should share professional fee payable under section 2 of High Court Fee Rules for said matters along with the other Special Government Pleader or Additional Government Pleader, who appeared in the matters previously or subsequently. The respondent is entitled to claim interest at the rate of 12% per annum, so far as the bills in respect of the matters which were already disposed of - appellants are directed to pay the professional fee to the respondent along with requisite interest in respect of cases which were already disposed of, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and they are further directed to settle professional fee of the respondent in respect of the pending suits, within a period of three months from date of disposal of each of the civil suit - With above modification, the writ appeal is disposed of - No costs Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed - Before parting with, we would like to add that in a matter of claim of fees for work done by Law Officers of the Government, many times, we experience that they are before this Court, claiming that their fees are not paid and approaching this Court for a direction to disburse their professional fees. This kind of situation is not good for the effective functioning of officers either during their period or even thereafter. Therefore, every Stakeholders involved in this process, should consider this position frame necessary Rules and Regulations in the manner, as expected. In addition to what is already available in respect of certain areas a comprehensive Rules may be framed for this purpose by regulating every aspect of this matter. We expect the appropriate authorities to act complying with the above observation and do the needful – Therefore respondent is entitled to claim the professional fee as per section 2(i)(c) of High Court Fee Rules. However, in view of Rule 9-A respondent should share the professional fee payable to the said four pending cases along with the other Law Officer or Law Officers, who also appeared in the said matters after the disposal of the said matter – Appeal disposal of
M. Duraiswamy, J
1. The above writ appeal arises against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 11.02.2013 passed in W.P.No.1126 of 2012.
2. The respondents in the writ petition are the appellants in the above writ appeal and the respondent herein is the writ petitioner.
3. The respondent herein has filed the writ petition in W.P.No.1126 of 2012 to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the appellants to forthwith settle her professional fees in accordance with the bills dated 17.9.2009, 19.10.2009, 13.5.2010, 3.9.2010, 21.1.2011 and 22.2.2011 pending sanction, together with interest at 18% per annum from the date of bill till the date of payment.
4. The respondent was initially appointed as Government Advocate in the year 2006, subsequently appointed as Additional Government Pleader and later appointed as Special Government Pleader (Civil Suits) on 14.5.2011. The respondent, tendered her resignation from the post of Special Government Pleader, due to change of power in the State of Tamil Nadu.
5. In the seven bills raised by the respondent, she claimed a total sum of Rs.29,85,500/- towards professional fee and the details of which are as follows:-
S.NO. Case Reference Proceeeinds Fee Bill date Amount Claimed
1 O.S.A.Nos.376, 377 & 378 of 2007 Arguing final is posal 17.09.2009 Rs. 31,949/-
2 C.S.No.553/2005 Preparing and filing written statement 21.02.2011 Rs.26,30,750/-
3 C.S.No.564/2005 Preparing and filing written statement 21.01.2011 Rs. 1,03,250/-
4 C.S.No.934/2005 Preparing and filing written statement 21.01.2011 Rs. 60,576/-
5 O.S.A.No.217/2006 Argued for final disposal 3.9.2010 Rs. 26,500/-
6 C.S.No.1090/2009 Preparing and filing written statement 13.5.2010 Rs. 31,500/-
7 C.S.No.418/2001 Trial and final disposal 19.10.2009 Rs.1,00,975/-
Total Rs.29,85,500/-
After tendering her resignation, the respondent sent a representation on 26.7.2011 seeking sanction of the above bills and in spite of receipt of the same by the third appellant, no action was taken. Therefore, the respondent sent a reminder on 13.9.2011 stating that she would claim interest at the rate of 18% per annum till the date of actual payment. Subsequently, on 14.2.2011, the respondent sent another reminder and even for that she did not receive any response from the third appellant.
6. It is pertinent to note that the respondent resigned her post on 14.5.2011. She was appearing before this court representing the Government and the Government Officials in her capacity as Special Government Pleader (Civil Suits).
7. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, disposed of the writ petition by directing the appellants to sanction the legal fee claimed by the respondent in respect of the above referred bills with 12% interest per annum from the date of expiry of six months of submission of fee bills till the date of payment. Further, the learned Single Judge has directed the appellants to complete the entire exercise and settle the amounts to the respondent, within two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
8. Aggrieved over the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the respondent has filed the above writ appeal.
9. Heard Mr.P.H.Aravind Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the appellants and Mr.K.M.Vijayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent.
10. Mr.P.H.Aravind Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the appellants submitted that out of the seven items, for which the respondent had claimed her professional fee, four cases are still pending and so far as the pending cases are concerned, fee can be paid only after the disposal of the civil suits. Further, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that as per Rule 9-A of the Law Officers High Court Standing Orders, in cases, where more than one Law Officer was in charge of a particular case, the fee payable to that particular case, shall be shared equally among the Law Officers, who prep
