Himachal Pradesh High Court
Salochna Rana vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 13 June, 2024
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.622 of 2019 Date of decision: 13.06.2024 .
Salochna Rana. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents.
Coram:
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Ms. Salochna Rana, petitioner in-
person.
For the respondents : Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, Additional
Advocates General, for
respondents No.1 and 2-State.
: Ms. Winnie Thakur, Advocate,
vice for Mr. Narender Singh
Thakur, Advocate, for
respondent No.3-Bank.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
The petitioner is a practicing lawyer. Her
grievance is against the alleged action of the respondents in not releasing retainership fees due and admissible to her, in terms of her appointment as legal counsel for respondent No.3-Bank.
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2024 20:34:14 :::CIS -2-
2. The writ petition has been filed for grant of following prayers:-
.
(i) the respondents may kindly be directed to release the retainership fee along with interest @ 18% due to the petitioner for 5 years i.e. from the year 2012 till coming of new Government into existence.
(ii) That the entire record of the case may very kindly be summoned from the respondents for the kind perusal of this r Hon'ble Court.
(iii) That any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
3. The petitioner in support of her prayers made in the writ petition has not annexed any document. Even the appointment letter issued by respondent No.3-Bank engaging the petitioner as legal counsel was not placed on record. No detail of retainership amount, if any, received by the petitioner from respondent No.3-Bank or the amount due to her has been indicated in the petition. Though the prayer in the petition is to direct the respondents to release the retainership fees due and admissible to the petitioner w.e.f.
::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2024 20:34:14 :::CIS -3-the year 2012, however, in terms of appointment letter dated 20.06.2013 (Annexure R-1) appended with the reply filed by .
respondent No.3, it has to be construed that the petitioner was appointed as legal counsel for respondent No.3-Bank w.e.f. 20.06.2013 and not prior to that. Even otherwise there is no dispute to the date of petitioner's appointment as legal counsel for the respondent No.3-Bank as indicated by
4.
r to respondent No.3 in its reply.
Respondent No.3 along with its reply has placed on record some documents, on that basis following can be deduced :-
4(i). The petitioner was appointed as legal counsel for respondent No.3-Bank vide appointment letter dated 20.06.2013. The said appointment letter was subject to certain terms and conditions mentioned therein, being relevant, the same are reproduced hereunder:-
"Sub:Appointment as legal counsel for the Bank.
In pursuance to the decision of Executive Committee in its meeting held on 5.6.2013, the Bank Management is pleased to appoint you as standing counsel in place of Sh. Bal ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2024 20:34:14 :::CIS -4- Ram Sharma for defending the cases in Hon'ble High Court & to tender the legal opinion in loan files of Bank, on the following terms & conditions:
.
1. That you have to visit the Bank as & when required to tender the legal opinion in loan files etc.
2. That the remuneration for defending the cases will be as decided by the Executive Committee from time to time.
r 3.
That a monthly retainer ship fee will be paid to you @ 3000/-.
In case the above conditions are acceptable, you may submit your acceptance letter within week period."
4(ii). The Board of Directors of respondent No.3-Bank had passed a resolution on 17.02.2009 for paying counsel fees in Court cases in the different Courts, i.e. "ranging from Rs.2500/- to Rs.3000/- in the lower court and Rs.7500/- to 9500/- in High Court cases including all expenses."
4(iii). The Board of Directors of respondent No.3-Bank in its meeting convened on 30.06.2014 under Item No.14 on the subject "consideration upon paying retainership fee to the on Legal Advisor of the Bank" resolved that no retainership fee shall be paid to any of the Bank's counsels ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2024 20:34:14 :::CIS -5- and counsels shall be paid the actual fees for the Court cases entrusted to them and also for the loan files in which they .
would tender their legal opinion. This resolution was passed in specific instance originating from the claim made by the petitioner.
4(iv). The aforesaid decision was brought to the notice of the petitioner by respondent No.3-Bank vide communication r dated 31.07.2014 (Annexure R-4). The petitioner was informed that no retainership fee shall be paid to any of the legal counsel of the Bank and that they would be paid the actual fee for the Court cases entrusted by the Bank on case to case basis.
5. The petitioner in-person contends that she has not been paid any retainership fee and that she is liable to be paid retainership for a period of five years.
5(i). Petitioner's appointment letter as legal counsel for respondent No.3-Bank issued on 20.06.2013 does not indicate that the petitioner was appointed as such for a period of five years. No document to dispute the terms and conditions of her appointment as legal counsel for ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2024 20:34:14 :::CIS -6- respondent No.3-Bank has been placed on record by the petitioner.
.
5(ii). In terms of appointment letter dated 20.06.2013, the petitioner, no doubt, has to be paid retainership fees @ Rs.3,000/- per month.
5(iii). In terms of resolution dated 30.06.2014 under Item No.14, the Board stopped paying the retainership fees to its legal counsel. As per this resolution, the legal counsel of respondent No.3 were to be paid actual fees for the Court cases entrusted to them and also for the loan files in which they would tender their legal opinion. This decision was conveyed to the petitioner on 31.07.2014 as would be apparent from Annexure R-4.
5(iv). In view of the above, the petitioner can be said to be entitled for monthly retainership fee @ Rs.3,000/- w.e.f.
20.06.2013 to 30.06.2014. Therefore, petitioner's claim of retainership can be allowed only to that extent. Ordered accordingly.
In view of above, respondent No.3 is directed to pay the retainership fees to the petitioner in lieu of her ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2024 20:34:14 :::CIS -7- appointment as legal counsel for its Bank for the period 20.06.2013 to 30.06.2014 @ Rs.3,000/- per month. The .
amount, if any, already paid by respondent No.3-Bank to the petitioner towards her retainership fees shall be adjusted accordingly. The amount shall be payable to the petitioner at 7% interest from the due date till date of realization.
Present petition is disposed of on above terms.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua 13 June, 2024 th Judge (Pardeep) ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2024 20:34:14 :::CIS