JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner herein is an Association of the Patna High Court Panel Lawyers, who have moved this Court, alleging discrimination and denial of adequate remuneration to them by the respondent State for works done by them on its behalf in this Court. At the hearing of the case, however, Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad has appeared on behalf of the Addl. Public Prosecutors making a similar Complaint. 2. The advocates who represent the alite, who constitute a group of enlightened individuals and are at the foremost in the intellectual activities have moved this Court alleging that they have been subjected to exploitation by the State and discriminated in the payment of remunerations. Indeed they would not have done so had the situation not reached its saturation No adjective is required to describe the situation. Facts are so telling that a mere glance at that would show that the respondent-State has failed to adopt a rational policy and take any principled stand as to the remuneration payable to the advocates engaged by it. State’s measures to organize Tribunals and Authorities, besides or in lieu of the courts have increased adversary litigations and added many new forums. State invariably being a necessary party. Burden which it had towards fees remunerations etc. few years ago has increased. Number of State Counsel has gone up by atleast twenty times of what it was only a decade before All these, however, have not awaken the respondent-State to revise and/or to evolve a policy to pay to its counsel working in one or the other Tribunal or before one or the other Authority a reasonable rate or fee. The counter affidavit filed before us is a testament of arbitrariness in the matter of fixations of the rate of fee by the respondent-State and determination of the claims of the advocates for works done by them. It states that a scale of fee was decided in the year 1974 for the panel lawyers engaged to assist a Senior Advocate of the State, which has remained unchanged, recognising the variations in the living index Fee payable to the Senior counsel has been revised more than once, the last being on 6.7.1982. The counter affidavit also states that those who are discharging similar functions before the Board of Revenue are paid remuneration at the rate of Rs. The counter affidavit also states that those who are discharging similar functions before the Board of Revenue are paid remuneration at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day and those working before the Bihar Administrative Tribunal are paid Rs. 300/- per day but fees prescribed for this Court in the year 1974 for hearing each day at Rs.50/- have remained unchanged. Directive principles to guide the State are enumerated in Part IV of the Constitution of India which includes as in Article 39(d) the provisions that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women. Article 23 Part III of the Constitution of India has put an injunction upon traffic in human beings and begar and other similar forms of forced labour, the departure being only with respect of compulsory service for public purposes and in clause (2) thereof that the State shall not make any discrimination. Articles 14 and 16 together stand for equal protection of the laws and equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State Article 21 is a provision which states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by the law. Life in the context of the constitutional guarantee is not an abstract, incert and meaningless expression. Courts have read ‘life’ to include livelihood also, unless right to livelihood is read in it, its reach would be inhabited by abstract leaglism. Equality, as envisaged in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution has been applied to mean that all State action must be with predictable and that State must Act, within the bounds of law. It cannot Act, arbitrarily, as anything done arbitrarily is discriminatory and discrimination is prohibited. Stating that Article 23 enacts a very important fundamental right in our Constitution, in the case of people’s Union for Democratic Rights and others Vrs. It cannot Act, arbitrarily, as anything done arbitrarily is discriminatory and discrimination is prohibited. Stating that Article 23 enacts a very important fundamental right in our Constitution, in the case of people’s Union for Democratic Rights and others Vrs. Union of India and others (A.I.R. 1982 Supreme Court 1473) the Supreme Court has said, “…..We are clear of the view that Article 23 is intended to abolish every form forced labour The words “other similar forms of forced labour” are used in Article 23 not with a view to importing the particular characteristic of ‘begar’ that labour or service should be exacted without payment of any remuneration but with a view to bringing within the scope and ambit of that Article all other forms of forced labour and since ‘begar’ is one form of forced labour, the Constitution makers used the words, “other similar forms of forced labour”….. The object of adding these words was clearly to expand the reach and content of Art. 23 by including in addition to ‘begar’ other forms of forced labour within the prohibition of that Article …….. “Proceeding with the facts of the case and elaborating the theses as to what involuntary servitude may mean, Supreme Court has said”…… It may be physical force which may compel a person to provide labour or services to another it may be force exerted through a legal provision such as a provision for imprisonment or fine in cause the employee fails to provide labour or service or it may even compulsion arising from hunger and property, want and destitution. Any factor which deprives a person of choice of alternatives and compels him to adopt one particular course of action may properly be regarded as ‘force’ and if labour or service is compelled as a result of such ‘force’ it would be ‘forced labour’ …….” Illustrating, the Supreme Court has said “….. Any factor which deprives a person of choice of alternatives and compels him to adopt one particular course of action may properly be regarded as ‘force’ and if labour or service is compelled as a result of such ‘force’ it would be ‘forced labour’ …….” Illustrating, the Supreme Court has said “….. Where a person is suffering from hunger or starvation, when he also resources at all to fight disease or to feed his wife and children of even to hide their nakedness where utter grinding poverty has broken his back and reduced him to a state of helplessness and despair and where no other employment is available to alleviat the rigour of his poverty, he would have no choice but to accept any work that comes his way, even if the remuneration offered to him is less than the minimum wage. He would be no position bargain with the employer; he would have to accept what is offered to him. And in doing so he would be acting not as a free agent with a choice between alternatives but under the compulsion of economic circumstances and the labour or service provided by him would be clearly’ forced labour….. It is, thus, according to the Supreme Court – there is no reason why the word ‘forced’ should be read in a narrow and restricted manner so as to be confined only to physical or legal ‘force’ particularly when the national charter, its fundamental document has promised to build a new socialist republic here there will be socio economic justice for all and every one shall have the right to work, to educate and to adequate means of livelihood. It was denial of Rs.1/- each day in the remuneration of casual labourers engaged in the construction of the said projects that the Supreme Court noticed that the State had violated Article 23 of the Constitution and forced labour upon the workmen engaged by it. Indeed, one may get saddened by knowledge of the fact that the Advocates in our State have been reduced to the status of workmen earning daily wages. But the fact that the State does not have adequate employment is well know. Indeed, one may get saddened by knowledge of the fact that the Advocates in our State have been reduced to the status of workmen earning daily wages. But the fact that the State does not have adequate employment is well know. Advocates, who have to work for livelihood, do have alternative and when they get no alternative and go to the State for employment, it can gives to them such appointments as it likes State take advantage of their sufferings and force its terms of remuneration which do not satisfy the test of equality life and equal wages, we think this is time to accept that lawyers appointed by the State do not have a contract for work but are like Servants or officers who held a contract of work. Since the counter affidavit has made the position clear and in revising remuneration of Advocate, General, the Additional Advocate General, the Government Advocate, Government Pleaders and Standing counsel, the State has recognized the rise in the price and of living index as the basis to revise their rate of fee, by not revising since 1974 any time the remuneration/rate of fee payable to the panel lawyers, it has violated Articles 14, 16 and 23 of the Constitution of India. State’s action in this regard is wholly arbitrary. State’s action in revising the remuneration/rate of fee of its Law Officers and its inaction in not revising remuneration/rate of fee payable to the panel lawyers has resulted in discrimination. It is duty bound to revise the fee payable to the panel lawyers also. We would have disposed of this application without saying anything as to the fee paid to the counsel working before the Revenue Authorities and the Bihar Administrative Tribunal had it not been brought to our notice that the fees paid to them is much our notice that the fees paid to them is much more than the fee paid even to the counsel appointed under section 24 of the code of criminal procedure to work for the State, while in spite of a revision as stated in the counter affidavit, panel lawyers for criminal cases are paid @Rs.100/- each day, those working in the revenue courts are paid @ Rs. 100/- and those working before the Bihar State Tribunals are paid @Rs. 300/- each day. 100/- and those working before the Bihar State Tribunals are paid @Rs. 300/- each day. Fees paid to the Panel lawyers working in criminal cases is no doubt higher than the fees paid to the petitioners, but it is not understandable how they have been equated with the lawyers working before the Revenue Authorities. If the responsibility attached to the work is taken as a criteria to determine the rate of fee, the Revenue Authorities are all subject to the superintendence of the this Court orders passed by them are subject to either the revisonal/appellate Jurisdiction under one or the other law, or writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The Bihar Administrative Tribunal is also a Tribunal subject to the superintendence of this Court and subject to its writ jurisdiction one criteria applied is the responsibility attached to the work and that is why employees of High Court are paid higher emoluments than the employees of the civil courts How then the State has chosen to pay to the Advocates working before the Revenue Authorities and/or before the Bihar Administrative Tribunal emoluments/fee higher than the fee paid to the Advocates working in this court is not understandable. We are informed at the Bar that even after taking work from the counsel in the panel, their bills are not paid and Government always delays payments of their bills, sometimes such bills remain outstanding for more than a year. It goes without saying that fees earned by the Advocates become payable on the day the work is done and State thereafter shall be a debtor until. It discharges its debt by paying the fee. Unreasonable delay in this regard, we are informed, have become almost a practice. The State shall be well advised to tone up its administration in this regard nothing invites criticism than financial irregularities committed by a welfare State we are also informed at the Bar that there is no pattern followed in making appointments to the Advocates in the panel, so much so that mandate of section 24 of the Code of Criminal procedure has not been followed by the State of Bihar. The State, no doubt, has got option to select its counsel but selection has to be based upon some rational principle Arbitrariness in such selection, particularly when it is noticed that one and the same counsel is appointed as a Law Officer in this Court and a counsel to represent the State before the Administrative Tribunal or the Board of Revenue, and like arbitrary acts, are noticeable. Having considered the case in all its aspects, we have no hesitation in holding that the petitioners are entitled to immediate revision of their remuneration/rate of fee, in which they have a right to claim, as paid by the State to other panel lawyers working either before the Revenue Authorities or the Bihar Administrative Tribunals. We, accordingly, allow this application and direct the respondents to forthwith take the matter of revision of the rate of fee of the petitioners and that of the panel lawyers working in this court. The State may have to take notice of absence of any criteria in paying to its Law Officers different rates of fee when they appear to discharge almost similar function and responsibility The Advocate General’s post however, appointment and has to discharge, Constitutional responsibilities. Since the matter relates to the determination of the rate of fee and it appears that for the employees of the State of Bihar and other categories of remunerations paid by the State, April, 1986 living index has been taken to be the basis, any new rate of fee prescribed, as directed, shall be made applicable with effect from 1.4.1986. The respondents are directed to complete the revision, as directed, within a period of four months from today. Application allowed.