(1) Shiv Lal Purohit Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR : O R D E R : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5586/2007. (Shiv Lal Purohit Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others) DATE OF ORDER : November 24th, 2008. P R E S E N T Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gopal Krishan Vyas _______________________________ Mr. J.L. Purohit for petitioner. Mr. Vivek Shrimali for the respondents. BY THE COURT : In this writ petition, a practicing lawyer of Bikaner is seeking direction to the respondents to decide the question of payment of legal fees of the petitioner for appearing in the cases on behalf of the respondents in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) & Chief Judl. Magistrate, Bikaner. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a practicing lawyer and was appointed as Addl. Public Prosecutor & Government Pleader by the orders of the District Collector for the State of Rajasthan in Bikaner on 24.02.1999 and he continued to work in the Court up to September 2002. As per (2) Shiv Lal Purohit Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others the petitioner, he represented the State Government as well as Central Government as per the directions of the Collector in the civil cases filed against the Union of India; but, he was not paid the due fees. Before the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Bikaner number of civil cases were pending under the Land Acquisition Act in which the Defence Estate Officer, Bikaner asked the petitioner to represent Union of India in the Court. However, the petitioner expressed some difficulties but, ultimately, he appeared as per instruction. When the petitioner showed his difficulty a letter Annex.-R/2/1 was sent by the Defence Estate Officer, Bikaner to the Legal Remembrancer, Law and Legal Affairs Department, Government of Rajasthan in which it was informed that as per the Government of India instructions cases of Union of India including MOD are supposed to be handled by the Government Pleader or Asstt. Government Pleader appointed by the State Government at District level. Further, it is observed in the letter dated 11.08.2000 that Shri Shiv Lal Purohit with whom the officers of the Defence Estates Officer are regularly contacting as and when required; but, all of a sudden, Shri Purohit has shown reluctance to attend the court cases of the MOD in view of the impression that MOD may not pay the fee of the Government (3) Shiv Lal Purohit Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others Pleader. Upon this letter dated 11.08.2000, the matter was enquired by the District Collector and a meeting was held in the officer of the District Collector. Thereafter, vide communication dated 24.09.2005, it was made clear that in the meeting held in the office of the District Collector, the matter has been sorted out and no complaint is received by the District Collector and he is regularly appearing in the cases. Accordingly, the District Collector sent communication dated 24.09.2005 to the Law & Legal Affairs Department. In view of the above, the petitioner is claiming that after judgments by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) & Chief Judl. Magistrate, Bikaner, though the petitioner sent his fee bills to the Defence Estates Officer but it is not making the payment of fees of the petitioner though the petitioner appeared on behalf of the Union of India and Defence Estates Officer and the respondents are not finalizing the matter of payment of fees. In the reply filed by the respondents, it is pointed out that no formal order was passed for appointment of the petitioner and, repeatedly, the respondent MOD through the Defence Estates Officer, Bikaner asked the Law Department of the Government of Rajasthan to verify the bills and, in the absence of verification, the payment is not being made. Further, it is (4) Shiv Lal Purohit Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others submitted that the petitioner himself had refused to appear in the cases on various grounds, therefore, without any verification by the Law Department of the Government of Rajasthan, payment cannot be made. I have considered the pleadings of the respective parties. In my opinion, as per letter dated 11.08.2000 when the complaint was made by the Defence Estates Officer, Bikaner Circle, Bikaner that the petitioner is not putting in appearance; but, later on, as per Annex.-9 dated 24.09.2005, the District Collector sent information to the Law Department of the Government of Rajasthan that the matter has been sorted out and there is no complaint and he is appearing in the cases and the problem was sorted out at the relevant time. Meaning thereby, it is nowhere disputed by the respondents that the petitioner was not authorized to appear on behalf of the Union of India. Moreover, it is evident from letter Annex.-R/2/1 that Government Pleader appointed by the State Government is required to appear as per Government of India instructions on behalf of the Union of India also. Letter Annex.-R/2/1 reads as follows : “As per the govt. of India instructions cases of Union of India including MOD are supposed to be handled by Govt Pleader or Asstt. Govt. Pleader appointed by the State Govt at Distt. Level. Shri (5) Shiv Lal Purohit Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others Shivlal Pruhit is Govt Pleader at Bikaner with whom my SDO used to contact as and when required. But all of sudden he shown reluctance to attend the court cases of MOD in view of his impression that MOD donot pay the fee bills of Govt Pleader.” If this fact is undisputed then obviously upon appearance in the cases, the Government Pleader is entitled for remuneration. In this case, all the cases in which the petitioner appeared were decided in favour of the Union of India, even though, no reply was filed; meaning thereby, without there being reply from the department, due to efforts and legal acumen of the petitioner, the matters were decided by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Bikaner for which the petitioner is obviously entitled for the legal fees and if he has submitted the bills for payment after appearing in the cases, then, it cannot be denied for any technical reasons. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay the legal fees of the petitioner in respect of the bills along with evidence of his appearance have been submitted by the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. There shall however be no order as to costs. (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J. (6) Shiv Lal Purohit Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others Ojha, a.