Patna High Court - Orders
Shravan Kumar & Anr vs Patna Regional Devp.Authority on 28 August, 2014
Author: Hemant Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Hemant Kumar Srivastava
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12851 of 1993
======================================================
Shravan Kumar & Anr
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
Patna Regional Devp.Authority
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
28 28-08-2014Heard the parties.
The controversy, in this case, is regarding the fixation of fee of the petitioners, who were working for PRDA in different courts between 1989 to 1993.
Learned counsel, appearing for petitioners submits that petitioner No. 1 was empanelled as Junior Lawyer and working w.e.f. 04-01-1985 and also worked under Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yadunath Sharan Singh and when the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Singh elevated to the bench, the petitioner No. 1 worked for PRDA independently. The petitioner No. 1 was designated senior advocate on 17-07-1989 and claimed his fee as Senior Advocate but the PRDA did not make payment of fee of the petitioner as Senior Advocate and the matter is still pending.
On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for PRDA submits that the petitioner No. 1 gave his consent to work on behalf of the PRDA at the rate of Rs 110/- per appearance and accordingly, he time-to-time produced bill and encashed his fee at the prescribed rate but subsequently, he applied for increase of his fee and hence, his application was placed before the Board and vide resolution dated 30- Patna High Court CWJC No.12851 of 1993 (28) dt.28-08-2014 2/2 04-1990, the Board cancelled the panel in which, petitioners were empanelled. However, the Board permitted the Vice Chairman of the Board to take services of advocates of old panel till preparation of new panel. Learned counsel further submits that the new panel was prepared in the year, 1994 and information, regarding preparation of new panel as well as rejection of claim of the petitioners was given to them. He further submits that the aforesaid fact has been admitted by the petitioners in their I.A. No. 10283 of 1998 in which, it has been specifically, pleaded that the fee of advocates of PRDA was increased w.e.f. 07-02-1995. However, from perusal of Annexure-7 to the I.A. No. 10283 of 1998, it would appear that the decision was taken in the year, 1977 but the aforesaid decision was implemented w.e.f. 07-02- 1995.
Learned counsel, appearing for PRDA is directed to clarify the above-said fact as to when the decision for grant of Rs 400/- to Senior Counsel of PRDA was taken and when the aforesaid decision was implemented.
Let this matter be listed after two weeks under the same heading.
(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) A.K.V./-
U