the case well prior to the B.P.No.10 dated 21.04.2022 shall be fixed and paid only at the rate as prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.356 dated 24.04.2017, which means, the effect of B.P.No.10 has been implemented retrospectively in the case of the petitioner. 4. When a specific question was posed to the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board as to whether the very same retrospective effect application has been made in respect of enhancement of fee for law officers specifically engaged or appointed by the Pollution Control Board, the learned Standing Counsel says the answer in negative. Therefore, this Court feels that the adoption of the G.O.Ms.No.356 or the import of the B.P.No.10 dated 21.04.2022 cannot be implemented retrospectively only for selected cases and prospectively for other cases as that is a clear discrimination among the law officers and therefore, on that ground, this Court prima facie feels that, the fee claim made by the petitioner i.e., Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs only) for the cases he appeared is to be accepted. Therefore, for the remaining amount of Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees One lakh eighty thousand only) after deducting the earlier amount paid i.e., Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees One lakh twenty thousand only), the petitioner is entitled to receive. Hence, there shall be a direction to the respondent to clear the bill and pay the said amount and report before this Court for compliance.
