Nearly Decade-Long Delay in Patnitop Illegal Construction PIL Appalls J&K&L High Court; Directs PDA CEO to Join Proceedings
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Employees Under CCS Pension Rules Excluded from PG Act Section 2(e) Gratuity: Delhi HC Upholds Forfeiture on Resignation
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Supreme Court Orders No-Fault Vaccine Compensation Policy
11 Mar 2026
Delhi Sessions Court Upholds Conviction Under Sections 354, 354A IPC on Victim's Sole Reliable Testimony Despite No CCTV
11 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Seeks Dileep Response in 2017 Assault Appeal
11 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
R. SURESH KUMAR, K. KUMARESH BABU
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Chief Secretary to Government, Secretariat, Chennai & – Appellant
Versus
S. Ramasamy – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT
(Prayer:Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Pattern to set aside the order dated 15.11.2021 passed in W.P.No.25027 of 2011 and allow the writ appeal.)
SURESH KUMAR .J
1. This intra-court appeal has been directed against the order passed by the Writ Court dated 15.11.2011 mad in W.P.No.25027 of 2011.
2. The respondent was the writ petitioner, who is a practising lawyer since 1972 and on 10.06.2006, he was appointed as Additional Advocate General -II of the State of Tamil Nadu and he was subsequently designated as a Senior Advocate and later on 25.09.2009, he was appointed as Additional Advocate General - I. In that capacity, he appeared in several cases for the State of Tamil Nadu before this Court as well as before the Madurai Bench of this Court between 2006 - 2011.
3. He had claimed his eligible fee per day/per case basis and thereafter, he resigned the post of Additional Advocate General - I after the assembly
Timely payment of professional fees to law officers and the need for a centralized system for engagement and payment of law officers' fees.
The court held that Government Orders determining a ceiling as fees for a professional were arbitrary and irrational, and directed the Government to consider the fee bills raised by the petitioner in....
The court upheld the Government's authority to appoint multiple junior counsels and affirmed equal entitlement to fees among them.
The court emphasizes adherence to fair payment practices in labor jurisprudence while addressing procedural deficiencies in legal fee claims.
An advocate is entitled to payment for services rendered, and disputes over fees do not bar the maintainability of writ petitions against state bodies under Article 226.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article