1993 (10) TMI 363 - SC - Indian Laws

Court upholds amended remuneration rules, directs payment of revised amount with interest. No costs awarded.

Joginder Singh Wasu Versus State Of Punjab

Joginder Singh Wasu Versus State Of Punjab - 1994 SCC (1) 184, JT 1993 (6) 259, 1993 SCALE (4)289 Issues Involved:1. Validity of the amendment to the Advocate-General's remuneration rules.2. Retrospective application of the amended remuneration rules.3. Requirement of Cabinet approval for the amendment.4. Relationship between the Advocate-General and the State Government.5. Entitlement to fees under the amended rules.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the amendment to the Advocate-General's remuneration rules:The appellant was initially appointed as Advocate-General of Punjab with a fixed fee of Rs. 100 per writ petition, irrespective of whether they were batch cases or covered by earlier judgments. However, the notification dated August 7, 1975, amended these rules, stipulating that in cases decided by one judgment or covered by an earlier judgment, the fee would be Rs. 100 per case, with a total fee cap of Rs. 1,000. The appellant protested against this reduction, arguing that the terms of his appointment could not be unilaterally altered. The court, however, held that the notification clearly allowed for amendments 'from time to time,' and thus, the fees fixed under the 1953 notification could be altered. The court found it difficult to accept the argument that the fees should remain static indefinitely.2. Retrospective application of the amended remuneration rules:The appellant contended that even if the Governor had the power to amend the rules, the notification dated August 7, 1975, should not have retrospective operation. The court did not find merit in this argument, as the amended rules were to be applied to the appellant's pending fee bills, and he was requested to submit revised bills in accordance with the amended notification.3. Requirement of Cabinet approval for the amendment:The appellant argued that the notification was invalid as it was signed only by the Chief Minister and not placed before or approved by the Cabinet. The court, however, found no necessity for the matter to be approved by the entire Cabinet, stating that the Governor had the power to determine the remuneration of the Advocate-General under Article 165(3) of the Constitution.4. Relationship between the Advocate-General and the State Government:The court emphasized that the relationship between the Advocate-General and the State Government is essentially that of an advocate and a client. The State, as the client, has the right to stipulate fees, and the advocate can either accept or refuse the terms. The court noted that the appellant was appointed on certain terms, but these terms could be amended. The court also highlighted the high position of the Advocate-General and the trust courts place in statements made by him.5. Entitlement to fees under the amended rules:The appellant's fee bills for the period from August 1975 to May 1977 were returned, and he was asked to present them according to the amended terms. The court directed the appellant to send revised bills as per the amended notification and ordered the State to calculate and pay the entire amount due within four weeks, along with interest at 12% per annum, acknowledging that the government had the benefit of using the said amount for a long time.Conclusion:The civil appeal was dismissed, with the court upholding the validity of the amended remuneration rules and their application to the appellant's pending fee bills. The court directed the payment of the revised amount with interest but did not award any costs.