Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 313 (AP)

Gata Balarangaiah v. Jawahar Reddy

2022-03-16

R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

body2022
JUDGMENT R. Raghunandan Rao, J. - The petitioner had been appointed as the Standing Counsel for the a.P. Vidhya Vidhana Parishad to represent it before the andhra Pradesh administrative Tribunal and this Court. The petitioner had discharged his duties as the Standing Counsel of this organisation from 26.11.2014 onwards. 2. The petitioner is entitled to claim legal fees as per the Rules in force. as the said a.P. Vidhya Vidhana Parishad had not cleared all the bills claimed by the petitioner, he was constrained to claim his arrears by calling on the a.P. Vidhya Vidhana Parishad to clear his dues. after addressing individual letters, the petitioner gave a consolidated claim on 19.03.2018 setting out the amounts that were payable to him. 3. as this claim was not being considered, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of W.P.No.13987 of 2018 for a direction to the respondents therein to clear the dues. This Court by an order dated 30.12.2019 disposed of the writ petition with the following directions: 'Hence, in view of the above, this Court deems it fit to direct the respondents to pay the fee to the petitioner as per the bill, dated 19.03.2018, subject to their verifying the orders with the help of the writ petitions that the petitioner has mentioned in the representation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.' 4. The petitioner has now approached this Court by way of the present contempt case complaining violation of the directions of this Court as his claim was not being cleared. 5. The respondents had, thereafter, filed counter affidavits stating that the petitioner had initially claimed Rs.16,08,830/- as balance fees under the claim bill dated 19.03.2018. Thereafter, he made a further claim on 18.09.2018 for payment of fees of Rs.20,25,000/-. The respondents have taken up the claims and have settled the claims in accordance with the Rules. On that basis, the respondents submitted that they had complied with the directions of this Court. 6. The petitioner now claims that the respondents have not settled the claims of the petitioner in accordance with the Rules, and consequently, they have violated the orders of this Court and are liable for being punished for contempt of Court. 7. Heard the petitioner as party-in-person and Sri S. appadhara Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 8. 6. The petitioner now claims that the respondents have not settled the claims of the petitioner in accordance with the Rules, and consequently, they have violated the orders of this Court and are liable for being punished for contempt of Court. 7. Heard the petitioner as party-in-person and Sri S. appadhara Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 8. The respondents have filed the minutes of the meeting held on 06.10.2020 wherein the issue of pending payments to the petitioner are sought to be resolved. The minutes of this meeting would show that it was agreed to enhance the fee payable to the petitioner from Rs.4,000/-to Rs.6,000/- and from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.8,000/- for cases before the a.P. administrative Tribunal and this Court respectively. It is also resolved to pay him full fee in the case of High Court cases, at the time of the filing of the case, instead of paying 50% at the time of disposal of the case. 9. On this basis, the payments that were due to the petitioner were included. These minutes would also show that some of the claims made by the petitioner were not included in the admitted dues on the ground that the petitioner could not place any material to demonstrate that he had appeared in those cases on behalf of Vidya Vidhana Parishad. 10. The petitioner contends that in the very nature of things, there would be a large number of cases where the name of the petitioner would not have been reflected even though he had appeared in the matters. He submits that in quite a few cases, the matters were disposed of at the admission stage itself and consequently his name may not have been reflected in the records. He submits that in such a situation, the respondents cannot deny him the fees payable for those cases. 11. The direction of this Court was to consider his consolidated claim made on 19.03.2018. The respondents have considered the said claim. In fact, the respondents appear to have even included the enhanced claim of 18.09.2018 also. The direction of this Court to the respondents was to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner. There was no direction to pay the entire amount claimed by the petitioner in his claim dated 19.03.2018. The respondents have considered the said claim. In fact, the respondents appear to have even included the enhanced claim of 18.09.2018 also. The direction of this Court to the respondents was to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner. There was no direction to pay the entire amount claimed by the petitioner in his claim dated 19.03.2018. The present complaint of the petitioner appears to be that his claim should have been accepted in toto and the respondents did not have any discretion to disallow any part of his claim. This contention cannot be accepted as the order of this Court was only to consider the claim and not to pay the claim as framed by the petitioner. In the event of the petitioner being aggrieved by the rejection of any of his claims, it would always be open to the petitioner to avail of his remedies. 12. In the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that there is no violation of the order of this Court which requires this Court to punish the respondents for contempt of Court. accordingly the contempt case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. as a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.