Partly allowed

Muthaiah v. the District Collector

Madras HC18 Dec 2024WP(MD)/2342/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

petitioner, a former Government Pleader, challenged an order fixing his legal fee based on 654 disposed cases instead of the claimed 719. The High Court held there was no justification for the reduction and directed the respondent to pay the difference of Rs.26,000 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the order regarding 654 cases; directed respondent to pay Rs.26,000 plus interest at 6% p.a. from 26.12.2018.

Muthaiah Vs the District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.2342 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 18.12.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.2342 of 2021

¶7

Muthaiah ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the respondent made in Roc.No.59792/2018/C4 dated 09.03.2020 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent to pay legal fee as per G.O(Ms)No.36, dated 12.01.2011.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian For Respondent : Mr.D.Gandhi Raj Special Government Pleader

¶12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶13

1/6

¶14

W.P(MD)No.2342 of 2021

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the respondent dated 09.03.2020 thereby sanctioning to the tune of Rs.5,00,450/- as the petitioner's fees.

¶17

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶18

3.The petitioner was served as Government Pleader for the District Munsif Court, Melur by the Government Order in G.O(D)No.665 dated 09.07.2011 and G.O.D.No.731, Home (Cts VIA) Department, dated 09.06.2017. Accordingly, he continued as Government Pleader from 09.07.2011 to 28.02.2018. Thereafter his service was terminated. During his tenure, he had appeared and defended the case effectively for 719 civil suits. As per the Government Order passed by the Department of Home in G.O.Ms.No.36, Home (Cts VIA) Department dated 12.01.2011, the fee structure of the law officers attached to the sub-ordinate Courts

¶19

was revised. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for his fees. The https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6

¶20

W.P(MD)No.2342 of 2021

¶21

petitioner submitted a representation and claimed his fees to the tune of Rs.14,38,000/-. However, it was not considered and as such, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.2826 of 2019 and this Court by order dated 15.02.2019 directed the respondent to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner. At last, the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs.5,00,450/- by deducting the

¶22

income tax. The fee schedule is as follows:

¶23

Sl. No.	Nature of Work	Permissi ble as per G.O	Fee by th	bill submitted e petitioner	Total (Rs.)
1.	Preparation of plaint, written statement counter affidavit	Rs. 150/-	Out 559 (559	of 719 cases found eligible X 150)	83,850
2.	Appearance for marginal representations other than adjournments	Rs. 100/-	1550 appe X 10	days (for arance) (1550 0)	1,55,000
3.	Final arguments and disposal of cases (other than money suits)	Rs. 400/-	Out 654 (654	of 719 cases found eligible X 400)	2,61,600
				Total(Rs.)	5,00,450

¶24

4.According to the petitioner, though the petitioner appeared and disposed of 719 cases, the petitioner was granted fees only for 654 cases. The disposal of per case fixed the fee as Rs. 400/-. Accordingly, they calculated and disbursed the legal fees.

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

3/6

¶27

W.P(MD)No.2342 of 2021

¶28

There is no justification for the reduction of number of cases from 719 to 654.

¶29

5.On perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent and on the submissions made by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would reveal that there is no justification and material produced to substantiate the deduction of number of cases from 719 to 654. As per G.O.Ms.No. 36 Home (Cts VIA) Department dated 12.01.2011, for the disposal cases, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.400/-. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to claim fees for 719 cases as disposal cases. In view of the above, the fee structure for 654 cases alone in serial No.3 for final arguments and disposal of cases alone cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be quashed.

¶30

6.Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the respondent dated 09.03.2020 in serial No.3 alone is quashed. The respondent is directed to disburse the fees at Rs.400/- per case under the head of final arguments and disposal of cases for 719 cases instead of 654. For the remaining number of 65 cases comes to Rs.26,000/-. The respondent is directed to pay the sum of Rs. 4/6

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

W.P(MD)No.2342 of 2021

¶33

26,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of his claim dated 26.12.2018 till the date of realization, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Insofar as arrears of salary is concerned, the petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh representation with all particulars.

¶34

7.With the above direction, this Writ Petition is partly

¶35

allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

18.12.2024

¶37

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes ps

¶38

¶39

The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

5/6

¶42

W.P(MD)No.2342 of 2021

¶43

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

¶44

¶45

Order made in W.P(MD)No.2342 of 2021

¶46

18.12.2024

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

6/6

Muthaiah v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthaiah v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rev. R. Raja Stalin Vs The District Collector

Sahaya Leon Vs The Inspector General of Registration

Dhan Foundation Vs The Inspector General of Registration

Malarvizhi.a Vs the District Collector

Seenivasan K Vs The District Registrar (Administration)

Krishnamoorthy Vs The Additional Chief Secretary to Government