Disposed

M.B. Nanaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Sept 2013WP/28392/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by an Additional Government Pleader seeking payment of outstanding retainer fees and staff expenses. The Court directed the respondents to process the bills expeditiously and remit the amounts within two months, and ordered the Deputy Commissioner to disburse staff wages immediately upon receiving a copy of the order.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to respondents to process bills and pay retainer fee via negotiable instrument within two months; Deputy Commissioner ordered to disburse staff wages immediately.

M.B. Nanaiah Vs the State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.28392/2013 (GM-RES)

¶7

Between:

¶8

M.B. Nanaiah S/o M K Bheemaiah Aged about 38 years Govt. Advocate Thavalageri Village T. Shettigeri Post Virajpet Taluk Kodagu District.

¶9

… Petitioner

¶10

(By Sri A S Ponnanna, Adv. for Sri A.K. Subbaiah, Adv.)

¶11

And :

¶12

The State of Karnataka By its Secretary Dept. of Law, Justice & Human Rights Viddhana Soudha Ambedkar Veedhi Bangalore – 560 001

¶13

The Under Secretary, (Admn-1) Dept. of Law, Justice & Human Rights Viddhana Soudha Ambedkar Veedhi Bangalore – 560 001 … Respondents

¶14

(By Sri Jagadish Mundargi, GA.)

¶15

¶16

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to; direct the respondents to make payment of Rs.7,75,000/- which is due to the petitioner as on 27.12.2012 & direct the respondents to calculate the amount due to the petitioner as on 01.07.2013 & make payment of the same forthwith and etc.

¶17

This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary hearing in 'B' group, this day, the Court made the following :

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of direction to direct the respondents to make payment of Rs.7,75,000/- which is due to the petitioner as on 27.12.2012. Further direction is also sought to calculate the amount due to the petitioner as on 01.07.2013 and make payment of the same forthwith. Alternative prayer for consideration of the representation dated 27.12.2012 at Annexures-F and G is also sought.

¶20

The petitioner is a practicing Advocate, who was appointed as Additional Government Advocate for Virajpet Taluk as per the provisions of the Karnataka Law Officers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 1977. Initially he was appointed for a period of 3 years vide the order dated 22.01.2008. The retainer fee fixed was at

¶21

¶22

Rs.3,000/- per month from 01.02.2008 to 01.02.2011.

¶23

Subsequently, the retainer fee was increased to Rs.10,000/- along with allowance of Rs.2,000/-. The said revision was made with effect from 01.04.2010. The petitioner also contends that as per the order dated 21.01.2008, he is entitled to appoint one Assistant / Stenographer to assist him at a monthly salary of Rs.3,000/- and also appoint a Dalayath on a monthly salary of Rs.2,500/-. In any event, this aspect of the matter is not

¶24

in dispute. The matter is presently before this Court since the retainer fee and other expenses due to be paid to the petitioner for having rendered the professional services to the respondents as a Government pleader was not paid. The petitioner is before this Court claiming the amount as noticed above.

¶25

As indicated above, there is no dispute with

¶26

regard to the petitioner having been appointed as Additional Government Pleader and the terms of such appointment including the retainer fee to be paid. Furthermore, when the petition is taken up today for consideration, the order dated 31.07.2013 is brought to

¶27

¶28

the notice of this Court by the learned Government Advocate to indicate that the services of the petitioner has been continued with retrospective affect until further arrangements are made. Insofar as the claim of the amount, the learned Government Advocate would submit that insofar as the expenses payable to the staff engaged by the petitioner, the amount has been uploaded to the office of the Deputy Commissioner from where the petitioner could receive the same. Insofar as the retainer fee that is payable to the petitioner, it is stated that the bills have been sent to the Office of the Accountant General and as such, the same would have to be processed and thereafter to be paid to the petitioner.

¶29

Having taken note of this aspect of the matter,

¶30

firstly, it is rather distressing to note that a learned Government Advocate who had been appointed by the State Government to defend their cases is driven to a position to approach this Court to seek for the professional charges that is due to be paid to him. Furthermore, before this Court, a contention is also being urged on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner

¶31

¶32

would have to approach the different Offices to receive

¶33

the same which I am unable to accept. Not only in this case, but also in all other cases, it is high time the respondents formulate a Policy and a procedure wherein the retainer fee payable to the learned Government Advocates who are rendering professional services are treated with dignity and the same reaches their Office immediately and without having to wait for the same.

¶34

In the instant case, having taken note of the submission of the learned Government Advocate that the payment to be made to the petitioner is under process, a direction is issued to the respondents, more particularly the second respondent to secure processing of the bills of the petitioner towards payment of the retainer fee to the petitioner be completed in an expeditious manner and the same be dispatched to the petitioner through an appropriate negotiable instrument within two months from the date on which a copy of this order is furnished to the second respondent. Further, since it is stated that the expenses payable to the staff has already been uploaded to office of the Deputy Commissioner, though the Deputy

¶35

¶36

Commissioner has not been made a party to the instant

¶37

petition, the Deputy Commissioner shall arrange to disburse the same to the petitioner forthwith on production of a copy of this order.

¶38

In terms of the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

akc/bms

M.B. Nanaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.B. Nanaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Shakthi Recreation Association Vs Commissioner of Police

M/S Reliable Amrutha Ganga Housing Developers Vs Authorised Officer

M/S Davanagere Security Services Vs the State of Karnataka

The Central Education Society (R) Vs the Secretary

Smt.Leelamba W/O Late P N Krishnaswamy Vs the Chief Manager

Smt K N Geetha Vs the State of Karnataka