1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5705 OF 2010 Mr. Shivaji s/o Tukaramrao Karhad, Age 65 years, Occ. Advocate, R/o Ambajogai, Tq. Ambajogai, District Beed. ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Law & Judiciary Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32 2 The Collector, Beed, District Beed. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri G.K. Naik Thigle, Advocate for the petitioner Shri K.J. Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for respondents ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED: 1st July, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER HARDAS, J.): 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. This is a peculiar petition by which the petitioner prays for 2 issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to settle the bills and pay him the professional fees for the services rendered by the petitioner during his tenure as the District Government Pleader. 3. According to the petitioner, the petitioner had been appointed as a District Government Pleader, succeeding the earlier District Government Pleader on 28.6.1996. The petitioner had represented the Government of Maharashtra as a District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor in the District Court at Beed since 28.6.1996 to 28.7.2000. According to the petitioner, for his appearances in various matters on behalf of the State of Maharashtra, the petitioner had submitted his bills from 2.11.1999 to 1.4.2005. The professional fees as per the aforesaid bills has not been paid to the petitioner. 4. This is an unfortunate case where the Ex-District Government Pleader is required to file a Writ Petition in this Court seeking payment of his professional fees. We accordingly allow this petition and direct the respondents to settle the bills of the petitioner and to pay him the amount which is found due and payable to the petitioner. This be done within two months from today. Failure to pay the amount to the petitioner within two months would attract interest @ 8% p.a. from the date the amount became due and payable to the petitioner. If the petitioner is dissatisfied with the amount of interest to 3 be paid by the respondents, the petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate civil proceedings, if that remedy is available to the petitioner. 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (P.V. HARDAS, J.)