IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 8922 of 2008 Judgment reserved on: 18.03.2011. Date of decision: 21.03.2011. _______________________________________________________ Mahinder Singh. ….. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P.& Anr. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. with Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge. The petitioner has prayed a direction to respondents to pay to him Rs. 45,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum towards fee and expenditure of lawyers for defending the petitioner in civil and criminal cases while discharging his duties. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 14.06.1992, dead body of deceased Ram Prakash was found lying on National Highway (N.H.21) near village Massewal within the jurisdiction of Police Station Anandpur, District Ropar, Punjab. The dead body of the deceased was brought to village Behal by the relatives of the deceased after informing the Punjab police. The matter was brought to the notice of Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. ...2… petitioner by Vice President of village Behal. The petitioner immediately reached village Behal and requested Station House Officer, Anandpur and police post Kiratpur to take legal action. An FIR No. 64 dated 14.6.1992 under Section 302 of IPC was registered at Police Station Anandpur and the investigation was started by Punjab police. The petitioner entered relevant facts in D.D.No. 11 at Police Station Kot-Kehloor. 3. Later on, it transpires that deceased Ram Prakash was murdered in village Behal and his dead body was thrown in the jurisdiction of Punjab. The Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur directed the petitioner to register a case and investigate, accordingly FIR No. 81/1992 dated 05.09.1992 under Section 302 IPC was registered by the petitioner and it was investigated. The accused could not be traced for want of evidence and petitioner put the challan for cancellation. In the meantime, the wife of deceased filed a private complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur under Sections 302, 201/34 IPC against four accused. On 04.03.1993, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, ordered tagging the police investigation papers with the complaint. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, sent the case to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. 4. The Public Prosecutor filed an application in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur and the petitioner was impleaded as an accused in the case on 25.11.1997. This order was challenged in Criminal Revision No. 34 of 1998 which was allowed by this Court on 10.08.1998. Smt. Mohinder Kaur, wife of deceased, filed SLP ...3… before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was dismissed on 10.09.1999. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that for defending the case in the Supreme Court, the petitioner had engaged an Advocate and paid him fee Rs. 30,000/-. The petitioner also paid Rs. 15,000/- to the Advocate for arguing Criminal Revision No. 34 of 1998 in the High Court. The Government of Himachal Pradesh vide notification dated 28.07.1994 has allowed the officials to engage private Advocates of their own choice in order to defend the cases which arise during the discharge of their official duties. The officials are entitled for reimbursement of the expenditure incurred upon the fees and expenditure of the private Advocates. After the decision of the SLP, the petitioner requested the authorities several times for payment of due amount to him. The file of the petitioner is being tossed from one office to other and the department is sleeping over the matter. The petitioner has filed documents Annexure A-1 to A-11 in support of this contention. The petitioner has ultimately filed the petition for the relief noticed above. The respondents have filed no reply, rather the request of the respondents to file reply was rejected by the erstwhile Tribunal where the petition was earlier pending. It is to be noticed that the respondents were given time earlier for filing reply, but they did not file the reply. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned Additional Advocate General. The petitioner has based his petition on letters dated 28.07.1994 and 08.12.1995 of LR-cum- Secretary (Law) to the government of Himachal Pradesh. The letter ...4… dated 28.07.1994 provides that Officers/Officials who are allowed to defend the case at public expenses, such Officers/Officials are at liberty to engage private lawyers of their own choice and also entitled for reimbursement of reasonable fee. The letter also prescribes how fee will be assessed by LR-cum-Secretary (Law). The letter dated 08.12.1995 provides that the Administrative Department shall assess the fee of the private Advocates which were/are engaged by the Officers/Officials in their defence after obtaining sanction at public expenses on the norms of fees as laid down in the letter dated 28.07.1994. 7. The bare perusal of letters dated 28.07.1994 and 08.12.1995 indicates that the engagement of the counsel by the Officers/Officials in their defence at public expenses should be after obtaining sanction from the State Government. The petitioner has not projected the case in the petition that he engaged Advocates for defending him in Courts after obtaining sanction from the State Government. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that inference can be drawn from documents Annexure A-4 to Annexure A-11 that requisite permission was granted by the authorities for payment, but despite that payment has not been made to the petitioner. The Annexures A-4,A-5, A-7 and A-8 are the letters written by the Officers regarding the case of the petitioner, but none of the said letters indicates that sanction of the State Government was obtained by the petitioner to engage a Counsel to defend him in Courts at public expenses. ...5… 8. The lawyer fee can be paid to the public servant by the Government if the engagement of the counsel is made after obtaining sanction of the State Government which is lacking in the present case. The documents Annexure A-4 to A-11 relied by the petitioner do not support the case of the petitioner that he engaged lawyers for defending him in the Courts after obtaining sanction from the State Government. In these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any amount, as claimed by him. The petition is mis-conceived, hence dismissed. 21st March, 2011 (Kuldip Singh), ( krt) Judge.