The Supreme Court has directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to honour the pending bills of former Additional Advocate General (AAG) Ranjit Rao, within a period of eight weeks..The direction was given by a bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Navin Sinha in an appeal filed by Rao against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court..Rao was appointed an Additional Advocate General for the State of UP on February 4, 2015. He was tasked with appearing and conducting cases before the Supreme Court. He tendered his resignation on March 4, 2017..Dispute arose when Rao submitted his appearance bills to the State, asking the same to be honoured. The bills of the appellant for the period commencing 04.02.2015 to 04.08.2015 and 01.01.2017 to 14.03.2017 were paid leaving the bills submitted for the intervening period (116 in number) unpaid. The State refused to honour the same, stating that his appearances for which the bills were raised were unauthorised..The State’s contention was based on an order passed by the Allahabad High Court in 2012 holding that AAGs are not public prosecutors in the absence of any notification under Section 24 Cr.P.C. Further, the State had also passed two Government orders wherein the fact that the appellant was not appointed as a public prosecutor has been specifically stated to be the reason for withholding of his bills..The petitioner approached the Supreme Court challenging the 2012 judgment of the High Court..The petitioner argued that he was not informed about the GOs and he continued to appear before the Supreme Court..The Court questioned the State as to why the petitioner was not informed about the GOs. It also observed that the bills did not accumulate in a day but took a considerable period of time..The Court also referred to a letter of the Advocate General of the State, as per which Advocates-on-Record may engage Additional Advocate General to appear on behalf of the State before the Supreme Court in which case, apart from the authorization in favour of the Advocates-on-Record, no further authorization, insofar as the Additional Advocate General is concerned, would be required..The State’s response to the above letter was that, “it was just an opinion of the Advocate General and the same cannot supercede the GO.”.The Court, however, did not agree with the said submission and stated,.“What has been said by the Advocate General is a reiteration of a prevailing practice in terms of which appearance was made.”.The Bench observed,.“In your counter you say that this is the opinion of the AG. This is the way you treat your AG ?” .The Court in it’s order stated,.“The appearances of the appellant in the Supreme Court in respect of which bills have not been paid cover a large period of nearly 18 months. We do not understand why the consistent appearances of the appellant over a period of 18 months was not objected to by the State if such appearances had really been unauthorized and contrary to the Government Orders in force, as now claimed.”.Further, the Court also noted that the petitioner was not informed that his appearance was unauthorised at any point of time..“At no point of time the State wrote either to the appellant or to the Advocates-on-Record that the engagement of the appellant and his appearances in Court are unauthorized and should be desisted from. Rather what we have before us is a situation where the State has taken the services of the appellant over a considerable period of time and now seeks to disown such services availed of on the ground of being unauthorized. Such a contention has been raised for the first time when the question of payment of the bills arose. Such action on the part of the State cannot be construed to be fair, just and equitable.”.The Court, therefore, directed the State of UP to pay the petitioner the outstanding bills within 8 weeks. It however, did not interfere with the 2012 judgment of the High Court..Read the order below.
The Supreme Court has directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to honour the pending bills of former Additional Advocate General (AAG) Ranjit Rao, within a period of eight weeks..The direction was given by a bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Navin Sinha in an appeal filed by Rao against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court..Rao was appointed an Additional Advocate General for the State of UP on February 4, 2015. He was tasked with appearing and conducting cases before the Supreme Court. He tendered his resignation on March 4, 2017..Dispute arose when Rao submitted his appearance bills to the State, asking the same to be honoured. The bills of the appellant for the period commencing 04.02.2015 to 04.08.2015 and 01.01.2017 to 14.03.2017 were paid leaving the bills submitted for the intervening period (116 in number) unpaid. The State refused to honour the same, stating that his appearances for which the bills were raised were unauthorised..The State’s contention was based on an order passed by the Allahabad High Court in 2012 holding that AAGs are not public prosecutors in the absence of any notification under Section 24 Cr.P.C. Further, the State had also passed two Government orders wherein the fact that the appellant was not appointed as a public prosecutor has been specifically stated to be the reason for withholding of his bills..The petitioner approached the Supreme Court challenging the 2012 judgment of the High Court..The petitioner argued that he was not informed about the GOs and he continued to appear before the Supreme Court..The Court questioned the State as to why the petitioner was not informed about the GOs. It also observed that the bills did not accumulate in a day but took a considerable period of time..The Court also referred to a letter of the Advocate General of the State, as per which Advocates-on-Record may engage Additional Advocate General to appear on behalf of the State before the Supreme Court in which case, apart from the authorization in favour of the Advocates-on-Record, no further authorization, insofar as the Additional Advocate General is concerned, would be required..The State’s response to the above letter was that, “it was just an opinion of the Advocate General and the same cannot supercede the GO.”.The Court, however, did not agree with the said submission and stated,.“What has been said by the Advocate General is a reiteration of a prevailing practice in terms of which appearance was made.”.The Bench observed,.“In your counter you say that this is the opinion of the AG. This is the way you treat your AG ?” .The Court in it’s order stated,.“The appearances of the appellant in the Supreme Court in respect of which bills have not been paid cover a large period of nearly 18 months. We do not understand why the consistent appearances of the appellant over a period of 18 months was not objected to by the State if such appearances had really been unauthorized and contrary to the Government Orders in force, as now claimed.”.Further, the Court also noted that the petitioner was not informed that his appearance was unauthorised at any point of time..“At no point of time the State wrote either to the appellant or to the Advocates-on-Record that the engagement of the appellant and his appearances in Court are unauthorized and should be desisted from. Rather what we have before us is a situation where the State has taken the services of the appellant over a considerable period of time and now seeks to disown such services availed of on the ground of being unauthorized. Such a contention has been raised for the first time when the question of payment of the bills arose. Such action on the part of the State cannot be construed to be fair, just and equitable.”.The Court, therefore, directed the State of UP to pay the petitioner the outstanding bills within 8 weeks. It however, did not interfere with the 2012 judgment of the High Court..Read the order below.
