Delhi High Court - Orders
J.M. Kalia vs Chief Controlling Revenue Authority ... on 10 February, 2021
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:11.02.2021 14:35:08
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7882/2020
J.M. KALIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ravinder Kumar Yadav and Mr.
Vinayak Sharma, Advocates.
(M:9811053371)
versus
CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY CUM
DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI &
ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Devender Kumar, Advocate.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 10.02.2021
1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing.
2. The Petitioner was appointed as a Legal Advisor on a contractual basis with the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India, with remuneration made in a lump-sum. It is submitted that he was appointed as a Legal Advisor in 2013 and the order appointing the Petitioner as Legal Advisor has been placed on record. As per the same, he was to be paid remuneration as under:
"Remunerations:
The total remuneration of Rs.20,000/- per month is fixed & his shall be entitle for reimbursement of the actual expenditure incurred in the course of his assigned duties including conveyance/travelling allowances as per rule."
3. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that he continued to represent the Respondent till 2020. He submits that the entire dues and professional fees payable to him have not been paid. Notice was issued in W.P.(C) 7882/2020 Page 1 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATHIBA M SINGH Signing Date:10.02.2021 21:15 Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL Signing Date:11.02.2021 14:35:08 this matter on 13th October, 2020 and again on 2nd December, 2020, the Respondent sought time to file counter affidavit. No counter affidavit has been filed. Mr. Devender Kumar, ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondents submits that despite repeatedly seeking instruction, no instructions are forthcoming.
4. This Court had considered a similar matter of non-payment of professional dues by GNCTD to their appointed counsels in W.P.(C) 1309/2020 titled Pabitra Roychaudhuri v. Commissioner of VAT, Delhi and Anr., dated 28th January, 2021. In the said order, the Court observed as under :
"6. The Supreme Court has, in the case of State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Luna Ram & Ors. [Criminal Appeal No. 1718/1995, order dated 18th May, 2018], dealt with a similar case wherein the State Government of Rajasthan was directed to pay the arrears of its Panel Advocates. Recently, a ld. Division Bench of this Court in Piyush Gupta v. GNCTD & Ors. [W.P.(C) 5373/2020, decided on 1st December, 2020], has also taken note of several grievances regarding the non-payment of professional fee/retainership fee bills of empanelled lawyers of the GNCTD and directed the GNCTD to clear the outstanding payments as early as possible.
7. Lawyers and counsels who are engaged by various Governments/Departments render their professional services to the said Departments and Governments. The respective Governments /Departments are expected to clear the professional bills of the lawyers within a reasonable time. Under no circumstances should a counsel who has been engaged by the Government/Department be forced to sue his/her W.P.(C) 7882/2020 Page 2 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATHIBA M SINGH Signing Date:10.02.2021 21:15 Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL Signing Date:11.02.2021 14:35:08 own client, especially a government or its agency, and seek legal remedies for seeking clearance of his/her professional fee.
8. The fact that the Petitioner was forced to approach this Court is extremely unfortunate. Though the professional bills of the Petitioner are stated to have now been cleared, his retainership fee is still not being paid. Since there is no dispute on the factum that retainership fee is to be paid, this Court directs the GNCTD to clear the pending retainership payments to the Petitioner within one month from today.
9. Needless to add, Governments/Departments are directed to ensure that the fees of the lawyers appointed by them are cleared within a reasonable time after the bills are submitted to them and lawyers are not forced to file petitions for the said purpose".
5. Since the averments in the writ petition have gone unrebutted, in view of the recent order dated 28th January, 2021 of this Court, it is directed that all the outstanding dues payable to the Petitioner shall be cleared within four weeks by the Respondents.
6. No further orders are called for. If the dues are not cleared, personal responsibility on the officer concerned would be liable to be affixed. The Petitioner would be permitted to approach the court, if the payment is not made.
7. The present petition is disposed of in these terms.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
FEBRUARY 10, 2021/dk/Ap W.P.(C) 7882/2020 Page 3 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATHIBA M SINGH Signing Date:10.02.2021 21:15