Order: The present writ petition has been filed by the Central Government Panel Counsel Clerks Association and 33 others praying, inter alia, for a writ of Mandamus to command the respondents to withdraw, cancel and/or to rescind the purported decision stopping the Clerkage as contained in the memo dated 6th February, 1990, being in annexure 'B' to the petition and for other consequential reliefs. Petitioners no 2 to 34 are the registered clerks of the Advocates practising in this Hon'ble Court, their duties are to assist the Advocates in maintaining the offices and chambers, particularly, maintaining proper records of briefs and other papers in their officers and chambers and to keep consistent watch in the progress and/or running of the list. The Central Government engages the learned Advocates or Senior Counsels on the basis of a panel prepared by them. The petitioners working as their clerks have to perform the duties mentioned above, similar jobs as are usually done in respect of non-Government clients or private ones. From annexure 'B' it appears that there is a revised Scheme containing the terms and conditions for the engagement of Special Panel Counsel, Senior Counsel Group I and Group II and -Junior Counsel/Advocate on record in respect of civil and criminal litigations and cases as may be entrusted to them in the Calcutta High Court. In the said terms and conditions, it is provided that the Counsel will not be entitled to the payment of clerkage on the fees payable to them. Grievance of the petitioners is against such stipulated condition. A representation has been made that the registered clerks serving their masters have their livelihood through the clerkage. The attention of the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice, Govt. of India was drawn that a mass representation was made in the year1968 in which an order was made for obtaining clerkage at the rate of 5 per cent. in the year 1971, but in 1977 by Memo. dated 17th February 1979 clerkage has been enhanced to 10 per cent. This system was going on and there is no reason to perpetually stop the system and to deny the clerkage. Being aggrieved the petitioners have come up to Writ Court seeking the reliefs as prayed for in the petition as indicated above. 2. It is contended that there is no reason to justify the decision stopping the clerkage. This system was going on and there is no reason to perpetually stop the system and to deny the clerkage. Being aggrieved the petitioners have come up to Writ Court seeking the reliefs as prayed for in the petition as indicated above. 2. It is contended that there is no reason to justify the decision stopping the clerkage. Such decision is arbitrary and sudden stoppage of clerkage affects the livelihood of the clerks and violates the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution. 3. The writ petition is opposed by the respondents by filing affidavit in opposition, wherein it is disclosed that since the petitioners claim that they are registered clerks of the Penal Counsel and render service to such counsels, there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and the Union of India. The Penal Counsels are included in panel on the basis of acceptance of such counsel and the clerks of such counsels are not parties to the agreement. The terms and conditions of engagement of panel lawyers of 1987 clearly envisage non-payment of clerkage to the clerks, It has been canvassed that the decision impugned not to pay clerkage is not contrary to the provisions of law. It placed on record that there cannot be any comparison with the private clients also' since the Ministry' of Law, Justice Branch Secretariate, Calcutta engages only the panel advocates. It has approximately 45 Court Clerks who are whole time Government servants and whose duty is to watch the Court proceedings, mark the list and inform and bring the Panel Advocates to Court at the hearing, in addition to their other Clerical duties such as maintaining proper records of proceedings etc. It is further stated that there are 2 different sets of .litigation system, one conducted by the Central Government Standing Counsel in various other High Courts and another by the Branch Secretariat of Ministry of Law & Justice, at Calcutta and Bombay. The Central Government Standing Counsels are the sole incharge of litigation and they conduct cases independently and the clerical work in their offices is performed by their own clerk. In the panel counsel system in Calcutta High Court the Counsels are not the sole incharge of the cases. They are paid fee for the item of work which they are required to perform by the Branch Secretariat. The Court Clerks, employed on regular basis by the Govt. In the panel counsel system in Calcutta High Court the Counsels are not the sole incharge of the cases. They are paid fee for the item of work which they are required to perform by the Branch Secretariat. The Court Clerks, employed on regular basis by the Govt. of India are performing the clerical work for the Govt. litigation and such all facts have been overlooked by the petitioners and the claim as made is without any merit and the Scheme has been made and the Circular issued, has not been properly appreciated and the petitioners are not entitled to reliefs as prayed for. 4. The petitioners also filed a reply reiterating their points as raised in the writ petition and refuted the other contentions of the respondents. 5. Having gone through the materials on record and heard the Advocates for the respective parties this Court finds that the grievance of the petitioners is whether as Clerks as their respective Advocates or Counsels, they are entitled to the clerkage upon the bills of the Advocates or counsels as per the previous arrangements, system and/or function. Consequently, the Scheme to pay the clerkage has been rescinded. In every High Court there is a system of work to be performed by the respective Advocates or Counsels. Under the appropriate Rule, the Advocate on record is engaged and they can engage clerks under certain terms and conditions. Said clerks have certain independent rights. The clerks who are engaged in the offices either by the Central Government or by the State Government cannot have access to the documents in the Court nor they can come to the chambers of the Advocates to assist such advocates or counsels and to get the duties performed in such chambers. The work in a Court cannot be done by any individual independently. A system has to be followed where with the spirit the work has to be done. The clerk is a part and parcel of the duties to be performed by the Advocates and Lawyers concerned. Unless the clerk concerned performs duties, the Advocate or Counsel cannot effectively assist the Court for effective adjudication of the matters. Such duties of the clerks are quite distinguishable to the retained clerks by the Central Government and/or maintaining the offices therefor. Unless the clerk concerned performs duties, the Advocate or Counsel cannot effectively assist the Court for effective adjudication of the matters. Such duties of the clerks are quite distinguishable to the retained clerks by the Central Government and/or maintaining the offices therefor. This is a distinction between the clerk of an Advocate or Counsel and the Clerk maintained by the offices concerned. There is no reason as to formulate any scheme not to pay the Clerks of the Advocates and Counsels and to hold that clerkage should be stopped. This action appears to be not fair, not consistent with the duties performed by the learned Advocates and Counsels appointed by the Central Government and the State-Government or by the private lawyers in any capacity whatsoever. Considering this view, this Court finds that there is no bar and/or impediment for clerkage to the clerks of the Central Government panel lawyers. What should be the quantum is not for the Court to consider. The Court has to decide the principles and rights and the duties in the proper perspective. Whether clerkage should be 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. or what would be the quantum has to be considered by the parties to the contract in accordance with law. But any scheme which provides no clerkage cannot be sustained in law and such action is not appreciated- by this Court. 6. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of by issuing appropriate Writ commanding the respondents not to take any action and/or enforce the said decision regarding the stoppage of clerkage of the Advocates or Counsels engaged by the Central Government. Leave is granted to the petitioners to make a representation properly to the authorities as to the quantum of clerk age and that should be considered by appropriate authority within 3 months from the communication of this order and/or from the filing of aforesaid representation, whichever is later, after giving chance of hearing and by passing reasoned speaking order. There will be no order for costs. Let certified copy of the order be supplied within a fortnight from the date of receipt of judgment. Application allowed with directions.