Judgment :- 1. Petitioner is a public spirited person. He has approached this Court inter alia praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to review the remuneration of the Government Pleaders and Public Prosecutors in a more systematic and reasonable manner. 2. The allegations made by the petitioner, in short, are as follows: All Sessions cases are tried in the Sessions Courts and Assistant Sessions Courts established in the State. Under S.24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the prosecution is to be conducted by Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors. As per Clause (7) of S.24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a person who has been in practice as an Advocate for not less than 7 years alone is eligible to be appointed as Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor. The District Collector in consultation with the District and Sessions Judge is to prepare a panel of names of persons who are fit to be appointed as Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor in the district. The Government is to appoint persons from among those included in the said panel. Generally the appointment is for a period of three years. The Government have fixed the remunerations to be paid to the Government Law Officers appearing in district courts and sub courts. The said remuneration is ridiculously low. Further, the maximum amount that can be earned by such officers is fixed at Rs. 22 500/- per annum. Government Pleader-cum-Public Prosecutors appointed in District Court centres and Sub Court centres discharge very responsible duties in conducting civil and criminal cases. Because of the very low remuneration the posts have become un-attractive to lawyers who have sufficient work. They are not even paid remuneration at the rate at which it is paid to Government Pleaders working in the High Court. Their remuneration is not paid regularly even. It is delayed for 2 to 3 years even. There were occasions where the Government Pleaders-cum-Public Prosecutors had to send lawyer's notice for getting their fees. In these circumstances, the petitioner prays that the Government must be directed to revise the remuneration due to Government Pleaders-cum-Public Prosecutors engaged by the Government to attend to the legal matters in District and Sessions Courts, Sub Courts and Assistant Sessions Courts etc. 3. In these circumstances, the petitioner prays that the Government must be directed to revise the remuneration due to Government Pleaders-cum-Public Prosecutors engaged by the Government to attend to the legal matters in District and Sessions Courts, Sub Courts and Assistant Sessions Courts etc. 3. On behalf of the State, a Legal Assistant in the Law Department, Government Secretariat, has sworn to a counter affidavit. That counter affidavit was filed in court on 27-6-1986. While contending that the Government Pleaders working in Subordinate courts cannot be treated on parity with those working in the High court, it is stated that the question of revision of the remuneration to Government Law Officers at District Court, Additional District Court and Sub Court centres is under the active consideration of the Government. As per the counter affidavit only persons having qualification prescribed by the Kerala Government Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Services) and Conduct of Cases Rules, 1978, are being appointed as Government Pleaders, that they are being paid in accordance with the provisions contained in the said Rules and that the main reason for the low percentage of conviction in sessions cases is not entirely due to inefficiency of the Public Prosecutors. 4. Subsequent to filing of the counter affidavit the maximum remuneration that can be claimed by the Government Pleaders-cum-Public Prosecutors at District Court, Additional District Court and Sub Court centres has been raised to Rs. 22,500/- from Rs. 18,000/- fixed earlier. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that the Government are actively considering the question of revision of remuneration payable to its Law Officers. 5. As per the existing system of dispensation of criminal justice the State is the prosecutor. Any offence committed is taken as a crime against the State and the society. The State is, therefore, responsible for prosecuting the offenders. For the said purpose it is the duty of the State to provide the required number of courts and sufficient number of prosecutors of caliber, ability, character and experience to conduct the prosecution in an efficient manner. In the administration of criminal justice a prominent position is to be assigned to the Public Prosecutors. The Office of the Public Prosecutor is a Public Office of trust. It is an. office of responsibility, more important than many others. The holder of that office is required to prosecute the offender with detachment and at the same time with vigour. In the administration of criminal justice a prominent position is to be assigned to the Public Prosecutors. The Office of the Public Prosecutor is a Public Office of trust. It is an. office of responsibility, more important than many others. The holder of that office is required to prosecute the offender with detachment and at the same time with vigour. When an advocate is appointed to such a post he is to discharge the professional and official obligations with almost sincerity and ability. 5. In Narayanankutty v. State of Kerala & Others (1982 K.L.T. 605) Bhat, J., observed: "It is unfortunate that Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors in the State are, so ill paid that the posts do not always attract talented lawyers. There is also a feeling-it is not for me to say to what extent it is justified that merit, talent and experience are not always the criteria behind appointments made to these posts. The prosecutors, in the, discharge of their duties, have to face talented and experienced members of the Bar. Complaints are not rare that at times the prosecutors suffer from serious handicap. Public confidence in the institution may be shaken. At time, confidence of the Government may also be shaken. Yet, earnestness in making these posts, which are sensitive posts in the field of administration of criminal justice, attractive or in making proper choice of personnel seems to be lacking. This has to some extent affected the dignity and status of the office of the Public Prosecutor." This observation still holds the field. No effective step is seen taken by the Government to remedy the malady. 6. Government activities in a welfare State are multifarious. These functions subject the State to various litigations as well. In the present day set up the State is the largest litigant. Those litigations have to be conducted with utmost efficiency. Otherwise the State may have to loose heavily. The High Court in many cases had to comment on the inefficient manner in which the Government cases are conducted in the subordinate courts. If the conduct of such cases before the lower court are entrusted with experienced and capable Government Law Officers the situation will change for the better. 7. The State. The High Court in many cases had to comment on the inefficient manner in which the Government cases are conducted in the subordinate courts. If the conduct of such cases before the lower court are entrusted with experienced and capable Government Law Officers the situation will change for the better. 7. The State. Government have appropriately made it an express term of appointment of Government Law Officers that they shall not accept any brief in criminal matters and shall not appear in civil matters in which the interest of the State may appear to be involved. As per this, when a lawyer accepts the post of Government Law Officer he will have to virtually confine to the Government cases and so he will have to bank on the remuneration he derives from that work. The Government Law Officers are holding a pivotal post in the administration of justice and the success or failure of the cause of the State depends on them. They hold a public office of trust. Like any other public office it is susceptible to misuse and corruption, if not properly insulated. 8. As stated earlier, the sessions cases before the Sessions Court are to be conducted by the Public Prosecutors appointed by the State Government u/S. 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Clause (8) of S.24 contains an exception to the General Rule. As per that clause the Government have the power to appoint Special Public Prosecutors for conducting any particular case or class of cases. Now it has become an order of the day for the public to clamour for the appointment of Special Public Prosecutor for conduct of sessions cases which they consider to be important. The attempt to get Special Public Prosecutors can to some extent go to show that the public are not having confidence in regular Government Law Officers who are to handle the prosecution. Depending on the claim the Government are appointing Special Public Prosecutors in many a number of cases. In many sessions cases eminent lawyers are engaged by the accused to defend them. If the Public Prosecutors appointed are not equipped to conduct the prosecution effectively the administration of criminal justice will collapse. 9. To safeguard the interest of the State in prosecuting the offenders and in conducting civil cases, they must have the service of capable and experienced Government Law Officers. If the Public Prosecutors appointed are not equipped to conduct the prosecution effectively the administration of criminal justice will collapse. 9. To safeguard the interest of the State in prosecuting the offenders and in conducting civil cases, they must have the service of capable and experienced Government Law Officers. Such experienced and talented persons can be attracted to the post only if they are suitably remunerated. In the present day cost of living a sum of Rs. 22,500/- per year is a paltry sum which can never attract experienced lawyers. The office of Government Law Officers is of a high status. Status now a days depends on the remuneration. So, taking into consideration all relevant matters I have no hesitation in holding that the Government Law Officers in the State are not being paid reasonably. The Government will have to consider the above matters in detail and to fix their remuneration. If a proper and reasonable approach is made to the issue, I feel that experienced and capable lawyers will come forward to take up the duties of Government Law Officers and protect the interest of the State. 10. In the above circumstances, I direct the Government to take a decision on the question of revision of remuneration payable to its Law Officers without any delay. The Original Petition is disposed of with the above observations. The Office will forward a copy of this judgment to the Chief Secretary to Government for necessary follow-up action. Issue carbon copy of the judgment to the parties on usual terms.