THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 8072 of 2003 O R D E R: The petitioner was appointed as a Public Prosecutor for the Sessions Court, Nizamabad with effect from 15.03.1997 and worked as such till 01.09.2001. One Sessions Case relating to the murder of Sri Bheem Reddy, former Deputy Speaker, was pending trial as S.C.No.86 of 1994 in the Court of the District & Sessions Judge, Adilabad. It was transferred to the Court of the District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad as S.C.No.119 of 1994. Earlier, one Sri Rasheed was appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor to handle that case. Subsequently, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.1309, dated 08.09.1998, entrusting S.C.No.119 of 1994 to the petitioner. In addition to discharging her duties as regular Public Prosecutor in that Court, the petitioner had also handled S.C.No.119 of 1994. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. On account of her being entrusted with the case vide orders in G.O.Rt.No.1309, dated 08.09.1998, the petitioner continued to appear in that case even after its transfer to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nizamabad till the disposal thereof. The petitioner submitted a representation for payment of remuneration for handling the said case. Through its memo, dated 07.03.2003, the respondent rejected the representation. Hence, this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home. The Government has the power not only to appoint the Public Prosecutors for the Courts concerned, but also the Special Public Prosecutors to handle the identified cases. While the remuneration to the Public Prosecutor is fixed one, the one payable to a Special Public Prosecutor is guided by different sets of rules. Either it is stipulated in the order of appointment or it has to be calculated on the basis of days of appearance etc. The petitioner was functioning as a regular Public Prosecutor for the Court of the District & Sessions Judge, Nizambad and that through the G.O.Rt., she was only entrusted with S.C.No.119 of 1994. There is no mention in the G.O. that the petitioner is being appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor. Things would have been different altogether, had it been a case where S.C.No.119 of 1994 was disposed of by the Court of the District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. The record discloses that it came to be transferred to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nizamabad and though the petitioner was not a Public Prosecutor for that Court, she had to appear and conduct the case even after transfer, on the basis of the entrustment, under G.O.Rt.No.1309, dated 08.09.1998. At least, to that extent, she deserves to be treated on par with a Special Public Prosecutor, since it was not part of her regular duties. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned memo is set aside. The respondent is directed to examine the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:17.12.2008. kdl