JOGINDER SINGH WASU versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 486 · Decided: 29-10-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, S. MOHAN

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
JOGINDER SINGH WASU 
v. 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB 
OCTOBER 29, 1993 
B 
[M.~. VENKATACfiAUAH, CJ AND$; MOl:IAN; J.) 
. 
Constitution of lhdla, · 195f} : Articles 165, 177-Advocate General---
terms of fees for cases conducted by him-field, tan be altered even during 
his term-:R.elationship between Advocate General and State Govern-
C ment-Explained. 
· 
The Advocate General Punjab (Remuneration & Duties) Rules, 195J: 
Rule 6(f) .'Notification No. 8746-ll-53/38717 dated 6.7.1953 and amended 
by Notification No. 12679-211-75125572 dated 7.8.1975-Tenns of fees in 
relation to cases to be conducted by Advocate Genera~Subsequent change 
D in-Held, Advocate General cannot say that he shall be continued on the 
same terms of appointment. 
The appellant was appointed as Advocate General of the respondent-
State. In terms of para 6(f) orthe Notification No. 8746-JJ-53/38717 dated 
E 6.7.1953, containing the rules framed under Article 165 of the Constitution, 
his fees was fixed at Rs. 100 for each clVil writ case or letters patent appeal 
arising therefrom even when a number of writ cases were disposed of on 
the same point of law or facts or the matter was covered by an eariler 
judgment. 
p 
Subsequently, the appellant received Notification No. 12679-2JJ· 
75/25572 dated 7 .8.1975, which substituted Rule 6(f) of the Advocate 
General Punjab (Remuneration of Duties) Rules, 1953, to the effect that 
for each civil writ case, letters patent appeal, and application for certificate 
of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court arising from such civil writ case 
or appeal, the fee would be Rs.100 provided that when a number of such 
G cases were decided by one judgment either because of common questio'1 of 
law or fact being involved therein or on account of the case being covered 
by an earlier judgment, full fee would be payable only in one case in which 
the main judgment was delivered and one half of the fee would be payable 
in each connected case subject to the condition that the fee payable in main 
H case as well as hi the connected cases would not exceed Rs. 1000. 'lbe 
486 
J.S. WASU v. STATE 
487 
appellant protested and requested the State Government to keep in A 
abeyance the enforcement of the notification. He submitted the fee-bills for 
the cases conducted by him from August 1975 to May 1977 according to 
the original scale of fee. These bills were returned to him with a request 
to send revised fee-bills in accordance with the notification dated 7.8.1975. 
Thereupon, he flied a writ petition before the High Court which dismissed B 
the same in limine. Hence, the appeal by special leave. 
lt was contended on behalf or the respondent-State that under 
Article 165 or the Constitution once a power was given to fix the fees, the 
corresponding power to alter the fees from time to time was equally 
available and; as the position of the parties was that of an Advocate and C 
a client, it was open to the client to stipulate a particular fee. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The fee in respect of the cases to be conducted by the 
Advocate General, fixed in para 6(t) under Notification dated 6.7.1953 D 
cannot remain unaltered. Nor can it be said that during his term it cannot 
be changed at all. Though the appellant came to be appointed on certain 
terms envisaged under Notification dated 6.7.1953, it cannot be said that 
the notification can never be amended. The Notification clearly stipulates 
'as amended from time to time'. (495-A·B·C] 
E 
1.2. The relationship between the Advocate General and the State 
Government is essentially that or an advocate and a client in relation to 
his appearance in court and arguing the case before the court on behalf 
or the State. A client may propose the fees. It is open to the advocate to 
stipulate a higher fee. If that is not agreed to, he cannot compel the client F 
that he must be entrusted with the brief, for him to conduct on the 
stipulated fee by him. When the State Government is not agreeable to the 
old fee structure, the Advocate General cannot say that he shall be con· 
tinned on the same terms of appointment. (494-H, 495-E, GJ 
G 
This Court directed that the amount due to the appellant shall be 
calculated in accordance with the amended Notification dated 7.8.1975, 
and shall be paid to him together with interest @ 12% per annum. ( 496-C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3202 of 
~. 
H 
488 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
From

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.