ORDER

The brief facts and circumstances of the case in filing the Writ Petition are stated hereunder:

1.1.The petitioner is an Advocate having enrolled before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu in 1977 and has been practicing both at the Principal Seat as well as before this Bench, ever since his enrolment. In 2013, the petitioner was appointed as a panel Advocate for second respondent university, for a period of one year from 08.05.2013 vide proceedings dated 13.05.2013. In pursuance of the appointment, the petitioner was requested by the university to represent all the cases pertaining to them before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.

1.2.According to the petitioner, at the time of his appointment as panel Advocate, regarding fees structure the understanding was that the same would be payable as per the annexure-I, supposed to be enclosed along with the appointment letter but the same was not in fact enclosed for the petitioner's reference.

1.3.During the period of his professional engagement, the petitioner appears to have represented the university in several matters before this Court and has also filed a batch of Writ Appeals against a particular decision by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The petitioner has given the details of the cases appeared by him and also the expenses incurred for filing of the batch of writ appeals and also the fees claimed by him on the basis of the understanding between him and the university, at the time when he was appointed as panel Advocate in 2013.

1.4.The dispute in this case whether the petitioner has to be paid equivalent to the appearance fees as applicable to the position of the Additional Advocate General appointed by the Governance of Tamil Nadu or he is only entitled to be treated as a Government Advocate or Additional Government Pleader in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1033, Public (Law Officers) Department, dated 01.11.2010, which order prescribes various fees structure payable to Law Officers, representing the Government including State run corporations etc.

2.Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there was a dispute in regard to payment of individual fees in a batch of Writ Appeals filed by the petitioner. According to him, individual writ appeal has to be filed in respect of batch of writ petitions allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Bench. The petitioner being an Advocate has to adopt proper procedure and had to file as many writ appeals as the number of Writ Petitions allowed by the Single Judge and this was objected to by the university on the ground that the petitioner ought to have filed a single writ appeal. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the university had not realized that when orders were passed individually in Writ Petitions, single Writ Appeal cannot be filed and each Writ Petition had to be appealed against separately. Besides, the learned Senior Counsel pointed out that there was a difference of opinion as between the petitioner and the university officials in regard to payment of fees to the petitioner. In view of the difference of opinion and understanding, the actual fee payable as claimed by the petitioner to the tune of Rs.10,49,689/- (Rupees ten lakhs, forty nine thousand, six hundred and eighty nine only) has not been paid for the total period when the petitioner's services were engaged by the university.

3.The stand of the university is, it is not inclined to honouring the payment due to the petitioner despite the petitioner incurring expenses towards filing of a batch of writ appeals and also appearance fees commensurate with his standing at the bar and his long experience, by equating his status as that of Additional Advocate General. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the petitioner being an Advocate having enrolled in 1977 and has been practicing in the High Court ought to have been treated as equal to the rank of Additional Advocate General. When he was appointed as a panel Advocate,