Dismissed¶31

Santosh Kumar Mohanty v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC15 Oct 2025WP(C)/1149/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Odisha High Court, W.P.(C) No.1149 of 2025, decided 15.10.2025 by Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad: former Additional Government Pleader's claim for unpaid professional fees of Rs.111170/- rejected; Rule 24(6) daily fees confined to district-level adjudicatory bodies (Revenue Courts, Labour Courts, DRT etc.), not regular Courts; retainer fee Rs.12300/- per month per amended Rule 16; ad valorem scale per Rule 17(1) with Rs.75/- minimum; petition dismissed, costs easy.

What did the court decide?

Rule 24(6) providing daily fees applies only when a Government Pleader appears before Adjudicatory Bodies such as Revenue Courts, Labour Courts, Debt Recovery Tribunal and other such various forums in the District; it is not applicable to appearances before regular Courts, employing ejusdem generis. ¶30

Santosh Kumar Mohanty Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.1149 of 2025

¶3

Santosh Kumar Mohanty …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr.A.C. Panda, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & Others … Opposite Party Mr.U.C. Behura, AGA

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD

ORDER

15.10.2025

Order No.

Petitioner, a former Additional Government

¶13

Pleader, is complaining before the Writ Court against non-release of Professional Fees quantified in a sum of Rs.111170/-, that has allegedly accrued due during the period between 01.06.2023 and 07.12.2023.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the OPs are not justified in not making payment of the ascertained sum in terms of extant Rules, namely, the Orissa Law Officers’ Rules, 1971. Learned AGA appearing for the OPs having filed the Counter resists the petition essentially contending that except the retainer fee and some percentage of ad valorem of the stakes involved in the proceedings, nothing more is payable. Both the advocates take the Court through the provisions of subject Rules.

¶15

Page 1 of 1

¶16

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

¶17

3.1. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working as Additional Government Pleader, which arguably would fit into the definition of Government Pleader under Rule 3(b) of the 1971 Rules. PART-IV of these Rules deals with remuneration payable to Law Officers, which obviously would include Additional Government Pleaders. Rule 17(1), being relevant, is reproduced:

¶18

“17. Fees in civil cases:- (1) The fees payable to Government Pleaders Additional Government Pleaders and Associate Lawyers in contested Civil Suits and cases tried under the Code of Civil Procedure shall be the advalorem fee specified under the General Rules and Circular Orders of the High Court of Judicature, Orissa (Civil) Vol.I, subject to a minimum of Rs.75/- (Rupees seventy-five) only.”

¶19

3.2. The above rule incorporates General Rules and Circular Orders of High Court of Judicature, Orissa (Civil) Vol-I, as the yardstick, although essentially it prescribes the scale of Advocate’s fees, which is as under:-

¶20

“Amount or value of the claim	Fees
decreed or dismissed in original suit
(a) Not exceeding Rs.10,000	10 per cent of the value of the claim in suit
(b)ExceedingRs.10,000 but not	Rs.1,000 plus 7½% of the

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

exceedingRs.30,000	amount exceedingRs.10,000
(c) Exceeding Rs.30,000 but not exceedingRs.50,000	Rs.2,500 plus 5% of the amount exceedingRs.30,000
(d) Exceeding Rs.50,000 but not exceedingRs.1,00,000	Rs.3,500 plus 3% of the amount exceedingRs.50,000
(e) Exceeding Rs.1,00,000	Rs.5,000 plus 2% of the amount exceedingRs.1,00,000”

¶23

3.3. The 1971 Rules have been amended vide Orissa Law Officers (Amendment) Rules, 2024 whereby Rule-16 is substituted with the following:

¶24

“16. The retainer fees per month of the Government Pleaders, Additional Public Prosecutors, Additional Government Pleaders and Special Public Prosecutors of the districts, Special Public Prosecutors and Additional Special Public Prosecutors of the Vigilance Courts shall be Rs.12300/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand Three Hundred only).”

¶25

This amendment is as clear as Gangetic waters and therefore, does not admit any interpretation.

¶26

3.4. The vehement submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that under Rule 24(6) his client is entitled to a fee of Rs.300/- per day inside the headquarters and Rs.600/- outside, appears attractive at the first blush. However, a deeper examination would show its unworthiness. For ease of reference, the same is reproduced:

¶27

“ The daily fees payable to the Law Officers appearing before different Revenue Courts in the District level, Labour Courts, Debt Recovery Tribunal and other such various Forums in the District, shall be Rs.300/- (Rupees

¶28

Page 3 of 4

¶29

Three Hundred) inside the headquarters and Rs.600 (Rupees Six Hundred) outside the headquarters.”

¶30

The text & context of rule make it abundantly clear that it is only when a Government Pleader appears before the Adjudicatory Bodies such as Revenue Courts, Labour Courts, Debt Recovery Tribunal & “other such various forums”. This rule is not applicable when one appears before the regular Courts. The rule employs ejusdem generis , is obvious. It is not the case of petitioner that he had appeared before these Bodies.

¶31

In the above circumstances, petition being unworthy of merits, is liable to be and accordingly dismissed, costs having been made easy.

¶32

( Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge

¶33

Basu

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Designation: ASST. REGISTRAR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 16-Oct-2025 17:22:18

¶36

Page 4 of 4

Santosh Kumar Mohanty v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar Mohanty v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalpataru Dash Vs State of Orissa

Susila Dei Vs State of Odisha

Basanta Kumar Panda Vs State of Odisha

Swastik Stevedors Vs State

Jagyansenee Das Vs State of Odisha

Somyashree Nayak Vs State of Odisha