D. S. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) KM. Indu Mehta, an Advocate practising at District Court, Kanpur, feeling aggrieved by the order dt. 21st May, 1985 endorsed to her by the Additional District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat vide communication dated 28th May, 1985, consequential orders of District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat dt. 7th June, 1985 and 3rd April, 1986, true copies whereof have been appended to her petition as Annexures ii, iv and v has approached this Court for redressal under Art. 226 of the Constitution. ( 2 ) THE facts, in brief, giving rise to the controversy raised in the instant petition are as follows :-the petitioner was initially appointed as a panel lawyer (Criminal) in the year 1978. Thereafter in May, 1980 she was appointed as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal) for the district of Kanpur Dehat and took over the charge of the said assignment on 16th June, 1980. In the year 1982 the post of Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), formerly held by one Sri Brij Mohan Kaul, fell vacant. ( 3 ) TO fill up the aforesaid vacancy the candidature of several Advocates was under consideration by the District Judge, Non-metropolitan area, Kanpur and the District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat. In the list of the candidates prepared by the District Judge, Non-metropolitan area, Kanpur the name of the petitioner was at the top. The District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat, also concurred with the recommendation of the District Judge and recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), Kanpur Dehat by means of his letter dt. 31st Dec. 1982, addressed to the Deputy Legal Remembrancer, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Nyaya Mantrana Anubhag, Lucknow, a true copy whereof is Annexure i to the petition. In the concluding part of his letter it is stated that Km. Indu Mehta would function as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), Non-metropolitan area, Kanpur in anticipation of the approval and till final orders were passed by the Government. A copy of this letter was endorsed to the petitioner also for information and necessary action. ( 4 ) IN pursuance of the aforesaid communication of the District Magistrate, the petitioner took over as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal) for Kanpur Dehat and worked as such during the period between 1st Jan. , 1983 and 30th April, 1985. A copy of this letter was endorsed to the petitioner also for information and necessary action. ( 4 ) IN pursuance of the aforesaid communication of the District Magistrate, the petitioner took over as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal) for Kanpur Dehat and worked as such during the period between 1st Jan. , 1983 and 30th April, 1985. After 30th April, 1985 the petitioner resumed back her initial assignment of a panel lawyer and is continuing in that capacity. ( 5 ) FOR the period she worked as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), Kanpur Dehat, the petitioner was paid her fee at the rate of Rs. 38/- per day, a rate which is admissible to the Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal ). ( 6 ) THE matter of the approval of the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), Kanpur Dehat, and passing of the final orders on the subject lingered with the government and the government kept on slumbering for an interminable period of about two and a half years. During this period nobody ever objected to the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), Kanpur Dehat, and her functioning as such. Not only that no body, including Government, objected to the appointment and functioning of the petitioner as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), Kanpur Dehat, she was paid fees also at the rate admissible to the holder of the post of Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal ). ( 7 ) SUDDENLY the Government woke up on 21st May, 1985, and passed an order of the date, a copy of which was endorsed to the petitioner from the office of District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat, vide communication dated 28th May, 1985. This letter of the Government, dated 21st May, 1985, which is Annexure ii, to the petition informed the District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat, that the Governor had been pleased to cancel the order of the District Magistrate, appointing the petitioner as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal) in anticipation of the approval of the Government on the ground that the order of the District Magistrate, appointing the petitioner as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), was illegal In the second paragraph of this letter it was further notified that for the work done as Assistant District Government Counsel during the period between 1st Jan. , 1983 and 30th April, 1985 the petitioner would be entitled to only such fees as was admissible to a panel lawyer. ( 8 ) AS a follow up measure, the District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat, passed an order dt. 7th June, 1985 (Annexure IV to the petition), purporting to inform the District Government Counsel (Criminal), Kanpur Dehat, of the cancellation of the order of appointment of the petitioner as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), by the Governor and calling upon him to apprise the petitioner that from the fee already received by her for the work done as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal) in the vacancy of Sri Brij Mohan Kaul, she would have to refund excess payment at the rate of Rs. 8/- per day which she would immediately deposit with the office of the District Magistrate so that the Government could be informed to the same accordingly. ( 9 ) IT appears that the demand of the District Magistrate with regard to the refund of the alleged excess payment was not complied with by the petitioner and this led to passing of another order dt. 28th Feb. , 1986 by District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat, (Annexure-III to the petition), whereby the petitioner was again informed of the Governments decision to the effect that for the work done by her in the capacity of Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), she would be entitled to only such fees as was payable to a panel lawyer. This order further purported to apprise the petitioner that during the period between Dec. , 1982 and April, 1985, she had received excess payment amount to Rs. 5056/- and that the same was liable to be recovered from her. The order also called upon the petitioner to refund the aforesaid excess amount of Rs. 5056/- and deposit the same in the Government Treasury without any delay. ( 10 ) THE petitioner, presumably, did not refund the amount of Rs. 5,056/-, the alleged excess payment of fees made to her Finally, the petitioner was served with another order/communication dt. 3rd April, 1986 from the office of District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat (Annexure-V to the petition) and by means of which she was apprised of the order of the District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat dt. 16th Jan. 5,056/-, the alleged excess payment of fees made to her Finally, the petitioner was served with another order/communication dt. 3rd April, 1986 from the office of District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat (Annexure-V to the petition) and by means of which she was apprised of the order of the District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat dt. 16th Jan. , 1986 to the effect that the recovery of the alleged excess payment of fees from the petitioner would be effected by adjustment from the fees payable to her for the work done by her as panel lawyer after 30th April, 1985. The payment of the bills of the fees of the petitioner with regard to the work done by her as panel lawyer for the period after 30th April, 1985, has been withheld and the amount of these bills is being adjusted towards the recovery of the alleged excess payment of fees amounting to Rs. 5,056/ -. ( 11 ) TO resist the claim of the petitioner two counter-affidavits have been filed, one on behalf of the District Magistrate, the respondent No. 3 and the other on behalf of State of U. P. through the Secretary, Nyaya Vibhag, Lucknow, and Legal Remembrancer, Nyaya Vibhag, Secretariat Lucknow, the respondents 1 and 2 respectively. ( 12 ) IN none of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, neither the factum of the petitioners functioning as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal) during the period 1st Jan. , 1983 and 30th April, 1985 at the request of the respondent No. 1 nor the payment of fees to her for the work done in that capacity at the rate which is admissible to the holder of the office of the post of Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal) has been denied. ( 13 ) THE case of the respondents appears to be that the District Magistrate had no power to appoint the petitioner as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal) inasmuch as the power to make such an appointment rests with the respondent No. 1 alone in view of the provisions contained in S. 24 (2) of the Cr. P. C. , 1973. He could only make a local arrangement and that is what he actually did in requiring the petitioner to work on the post of Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal) during the period between 1st Jan. P. C. , 1973. He could only make a local arrangement and that is what he actually did in requiring the petitioner to work on the post of Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal) during the period between 1st Jan. , 1983 and 30th April, 1985 in anticipation of the Government sanction and appointment of the petitioner as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal ). The further stand of the respondents, as gathered from the counter affidavits, is that inasmuch as the petitioner was not appointed as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal) by the appropriate authority her appointment in that capacity was invalid and that being so she was not entitled to the payment of fees at a rate admissible to the holder of the post of Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal ). The excess payment of fees to the petitioner was, therefore, recoverable from her and was being rightly recovered. ( 14 ) MRS. Poonam Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, urged that in view of the fact that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), Kanpur Dehat and she actually worked in that capacity, she was entitled to such fees as was payable to the holder of the said post. The petitioner was rightly paid the fees at the rate admissible to Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal) for the work done by her in that capacity during the period between 1st February, 1983 and 30th April, 1985. She further urged that in any case the alleged excess payment amounting to Rs. 5,056/- could not be recovered back from the petitioner inasmuch as it was voluntary payment made for the work done by her. The payment made to the petitioner was not made under any mistake. Learned counsel for the petitioner also urged that in any event the impugned recovery of the alleged excess payment of fees from the petitioner was wholly inequitable and the withholding of the payment of her bills of fees for the work done as panel lawyer after 30th April, 1985 by way of adjustment was illegal and arbitrary. ( 15 ) THE primary question which calls for adjudication by us is whether for the work done as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), Kanpur Dehat, during the period between 1st Feb. , 1983 to 30th April, 1985 the petitioner was entitled to such fees as was payable to the holder of the post. ( 15 ) THE primary question which calls for adjudication by us is whether for the work done as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), Kanpur Dehat, during the period between 1st Feb. , 1983 to 30th April, 1985 the petitioner was entitled to such fees as was payable to the holder of the post. ( 16 ) FROM the respective averments made by the parties and copies of the documents filed by them in this case following indisputable facts emerge :- (I) that the District Magistrate Kanpur Dehat, acting on behalf of the Government of Uttar Pradesh, respondent No. 1, requested the petitioner to assume the office of the Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), Kanpur Dehat and render her services in that capacity; (ii) that acting upon the aforesaid request of the District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat, the petitioner lawfully rendered services as Assistant District Government Counsel (Crl.), Kanpur Dehat during the period between 1st Feb. , 1983 to 30th April, 1985 and the respondent No. 1 received and enjoyed the benefit and advantage of the services of the petitioner in the capacity of Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), Kanpur Dehat. (iii) that for the services rendered by the petitioner in the capacity of Assistant District Government Counsel (Crl.), Kanpur Dehat she was paid fees at the rate admissible to the holder of the office of Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal) voluntarily and without a reservation or equivocation; (iv) that the request made by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat to the petitioner to function as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), Kanpur Dehat was treated by the Government of Uttar Pradesh as an appointment. (v) that the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), Kanpur Dehat pursuant to the request of the District Magistrate was discovered by the Government of Uttar Pradesh to be void for the lack of power in the District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat, in view of the provisions contained in Sub-Sec. (2) of the Cr. P. C. , 1973; (iv) that the Governor of Uttar Pradesh, therefore, cancelled the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), Kanpur Dehat after the lapse of a period of about two and a half years. P. C. , 1973; (iv) that the Governor of Uttar Pradesh, therefore, cancelled the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), Kanpur Dehat after the lapse of a period of about two and a half years. Further, the order of the Governor did not purport to terminate the assignment of the petitioner as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), Kanpur Dehat with retrospective effect and rightly so because the termination could become effective from the date on which it was made as no termination can be made to operate retrospectively; (vii) that in rendering the services as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), Kanpur Dehat, the petitioner did not intend to do so gratuitously. ( 17 ) RENDERING of services by the petitioner as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), Kanpur Dehat upon the request of the District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat, who was unquestionably acting for and on behalf of the Government of Uttar Pradesh, raised a promise by implication to pay to her remuneration payable to the holder of the office of Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal ). As a matter of fact when the petitioner accepted the request and acting upon it rendered her services as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), Kanpur Dehat, an implied contract imposing upon the State of Uttar Pradesh an obligation to pay to her the remuneration for the service rendered by her as Assistant District Government Counsel (Crl.), Kanpur Dehat came into existence. Thus, for the service rendered by her as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), Kanpur Dehat during the period 1st Feb. , 1983 and 30th April, 1986 the petitioner became entitled to such fee as was admissible to the holder of the office of the post of Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal ). ( 18 ) EVEN if the implied contract appointing the petitioner as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), Kanpur Dehat in pursuance whereof she rendered services as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), Kanpur Dehat and the Government of Uttar Pradesh received and enjoyed the benefit of the aforesaid services is found to be void in view of S. 24 (2) of the Cr. P. C. , 1973, as is the case of the respondents, the Government of Uttar Pradesh would still be bound to compensate the petitioner for her services rendered in the capacity of Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), Kanpur Dehat during the period between 1st Feb. P. C. , 1973, as is the case of the respondents, the Government of Uttar Pradesh would still be bound to compensate the petitioner for her services rendered in the capacity of Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), Kanpur Dehat during the period between 1st Feb. , 1983 and 30th April, 1985. In view of the well settled equitable principle quantum meruit and the provisions of S. 65 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 which embody the said equitable principle. ( 19 ) RATIONALLY, it cannot be held that in rendering her services to the Government of Uttar Pradesh as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), Kanpur Dehat, the petitioner was not acting lawfully nor can it be held that the petitioner intended to render her aforesaid services gratuitously nor it is possible to say that the State of Uttar Pradesh did not enjoy the advantage and benefit of the petitioner services in question. The State of Uttar Pradesh, therefore, having enjoyed the benefit and advantage of the services of the petitioner as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), Kanpur Dehat, which were lawfully rendered by her and were not intended to be gratuitous, cannot be allowed to turn around to say that for the work done by her as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), Kanpur Dehat, she would not be entitled to receive the fees payable to the holder of the office of the said post. Here another equally settled equitable principle restitution and prevention of unjust enrichment and the provisions of S. 70 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 incorporating the said principle, would step in to assist the petitioner to support her claim for the fees for the services rendered by her as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal) at the rate admissible to the holder of the said post. ( 20 ) HAVING regard to the foregoing discussion we have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner was clearly entitled to receive fees for her work done as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), Kanpur Dehat, at the same rate which is admissible to the holder of the office of the post of Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), Kanpur Dehat and she was rightly paid the same. ( 21 ) THE next question that arises for our consideration is whether respondent No. 1 is entitled to recover the alleged excess payment of fees amounting to Rs. 5056/ -. ( 21 ) THE next question that arises for our consideration is whether respondent No. 1 is entitled to recover the alleged excess payment of fees amounting to Rs. 5056/ -. Having found that for, the services rendered as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal) the petitioner was entitled to such fees as is admissible to the holder of the said post and that the payment of the said fees made to the petitioner was made by the respondent No. 1 voluntarily, without any reservation, equivocation or any mistake of any kind, it is not possible for us to hold that the respondent No. 1 is entitled to recover back from the petitioner the fees already received by her for the services rendered by her in the capacity of Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal ). Had it been a case, of which, according to us, it is not, the payment made under any mistake or coercion, the same would have been liable to be recovered under S. 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The impugned recovery of the alleged excess payment of Rs. 5,056/- sought to be effected against the petitioner is, obviously, unjustified and invalid. ( 22 ) THE impugned recovery from the petitioner of the alleged excess payment amounting to Rs. 5056/- being invalid cannot be effected in any manner including the withholding of the payment of the bills of the fees of the petitioner for the work done by her as panel lawyer after 30th April, 1985. ( 23 ) THE petition has not been formally admitted. The parties have exchanged affidavits and the case is otherwise ripe for final disposal. On the request and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties we have proceeded to hear the petition and dispose it of finally. ( 24 ) IN the result, we allow the writ petition and quash the impugned orders dt. 28th May, 1985, 7th June, 1985 and 3rd April, 1986, true copies whereof are appended to the petition as Annexures 2, 4 and 5 and all proceedings relating to or arising out of the said orders in respect of the impugned recovery of the amount of Rs. 5,056/ -. 28th May, 1985, 7th June, 1985 and 3rd April, 1986, true copies whereof are appended to the petition as Annexures 2, 4 and 5 and all proceedings relating to or arising out of the said orders in respect of the impugned recovery of the amount of Rs. 5,056/ -. We further command the respondents not to withhold and to pay to the petitioner the bills of her fees for the work done as a panel lawyer after 30th April, 1985 within a period of two months from the date of the presentation of a certified copy of this judgement. In as much as it did not act bona fide in trying to effect the impugned recovery and also because its conduct in withholding the bills of the petitioner by way of adjustment was wholly arbitrary and dishonourable we also direct the respondent No. 1 to pay to the petitioner the costs of this petition which is quantified to be Rs. 500/- within the same period. Petition allowed. .