( 1 ) HEARD counsel. This order shall govern disposal of M. P. Nos. 260 and 272 of 1988. Petitioners are advocates of this Court, who have made a common grievance against the State as well as the District Excise Officer and the Collector, Gwalior.

( 2 ) WE do not doubt that the grievance has a constitutional complexion in that the petitioner is entitled to invoke the provisions of Arts. 21 and 23 of the Constitution to complain that for the services rendered, even agreed recompense is denied to each of them. In both cases, the material document on which claim is based is the letter dt. 24-5-1986 addressed by the Under Secretary to Government of Madhya Pradesh, Separate Revenue Department to the Excise Commissioner, M. P. , Gwalior. By that letter, appointment of advocates for conducting cases on behalf of the Department was contemplated and fees for services to be rendered by them was fixed at the rate of Rs. 25/- per case. That much is admitted. What is only disputed is the meaning to be attributed to the expression "sampurna Karyavahi Hone Tak". Both petitioners, it is admitted in the return, have only been paid their fees for cases which were handled by them and were disposed of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document