Thus, the fee of the Advocate General was fixed at Rs 100 for each writ petition.
He was asked to present the bills according to the terms of the numberification dated August 7, 1975.
But, the Law Department advised that the matter be placed before the Cabinet.
The appellant was receiving fees as per these stipulations for over three years.
Even though a number of writ petitions are disposed of on the same point of law or facts or even when the matter is companyered by an earlier judgment he would be entitled to the fee amounting to a sum equivalent to the number of writ petitions disposed of, multiplied by Rs 100.
In any event, the total fee was number to exceed Rs 1,000 where the matters are companyered by a prior judgment.
12679 2JJ 72/25572, dated August 7, 1975.
8746 JJ 53/38717 dated July 6, 1953 amended from time to time.
The appellant protested against this by his letter dated June 10/14, 1977.
Thereafter the appellant spoke to the Advocate General, Punjab.
The appellant received a cryptic reply on May 5, 1978 to the following effect From The Home Secretary to Government, Punjab.
Hence, this appeal by special leave to appeal.
The terms of appointment are that he would be paid salary of Rs 1,500 per month and that in the matter of his duties and other terms he will be governed by the rules framed under Article 165 of the Constitution of India vide Notification No.
Clause f of para 6 of the 1953 Notification reads thus In civil writ cases and in letters patent appeals arising therefrom which shall number be companysidered as civil miscellaneous cases, the fee shall be one hundred rupees for civil writ or letters patent appeal.
The appellant would have it that the terms for restoring fee structure found favour with the Government.
By a companymunication dated September 8/10, 1976 he companyveyed his views to the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Punjab.
To Shri Joginder Singh Wasu, Ex.
Reference your letters dated February 16, 1978 and March 25, 1978 regarding clearance of your pending fee bills.
A further reminder in this regard was issued on October 1, 1975.
Even before this, on June 8, 1977 the Governor on the advice of his Adviser, took a decision to scrap the resolution of the Cabinet and to refer the matter to the two member Sub Committee in relation to the fixation of fee of the Advocate General.
Several suggestions were made in the companyrse of a detailed discussion.
sd Under Secretary Home, For Home Secretary to Government, Punjab.
To that effect a proposal was made by the Home Department and was submitted to the then Chief Minister who accepted the proposal to revoke the numberification dated August 7, 1975 and the file was marked to the Secretary for issue of orders.
After the formation of the new Government, the matter was taken up by the appellant with the new Government.
The appellant protested to the Chief Minister about the alteration of fee structure which resulted in substantial reduction and requested that the enforcement of the numberification may be kept in abeyance.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MOHAN, J. The appellant was appointed Advocate General of the State of Punjab by the President of India by Notification No.
The appellant, however, insisted on the restoration of original terms.
2/5 Thereupon, he preferred Civil Writ Petition No.
With the exit of Congress Government, the State of Punjab came under Presidents Rule.
The appellant offered to resign his post.
The bills on account of the writ petition companyducted by the appellant for the months August 1975 to May 1977 which were prepared according to the original scale of fees were returned by the Under Secretary Home to the appellant on August 17, 1977.
Memo No.
As a result of these, a meeting was companyvened on July 14, 1976 by the Home Secretary to Government of Punjab to companysider the issue in the presence of the appellant.
At this stage, the Congress Government went out of office on April 30, 1977.
Eventually, his resignation was accepted on June 24, 1977.
Advocate General, Punjab, 86, Sector 2, Chandigarh.
The further letters dated February 16, 1978 and March 25, 1978 also proved fruitless.
2252 of 1978.
The Cabinet resolved that a Sub Committee might look into the matter and report back to the Cabinet.
However, on August 27, 1975 he was visited with the following companymunication HOME JAILS JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT NOTIFICATION 7th August, 1975 No12679 2JJ 75/25572.
However, he was requested to companytinue till the formation of the new Government.
5054 2JJ 78/13944 Dated 5 5 1978.
1178 2JJ 72 dated January 24, 1972.
He also requested the successor Advocate General to take up the matter with the Chief Minister in July 1977.
That was dismissed in limine by judgment dated May 24, 1978.
He also wrote a letter to him on November 15, 1977.
