Allahabad High Court Directs Payment of Outstanding Professional Fees to Advocate for Representation of Gaon Sabha Cases.

Allahabad High Court addressed a petition filed by advocate Manoj Kumar Yadav against the State of Uttar Pradesh and another respondent regarding non-payment of his professional fees. The Court's decision, dated November 28, 2024, sets aside an order by the District Magistrate, Jaunpur, rejecting the petitioner’s claims for fees earned while representing various Gaon Sabhas in the Varanasi Division.

Case Background

Manoj Kumar Yadav, a practicing advocate since 2004, was appointed as a panel advocate for Gaon Sabhas in the Varanasi Division, encompassing districts such as Varanasi, Ghazipur, Jaunpur, and Chandauli. His appointment authorized him to receive notices and represent the Gaon Sabhas in cases where they were a party. Yadav performed his duties diligently until his removal from the panel on December 27, 2019.

Following his tenure, Yadav raised bills for cases he handled. While his fees for districts like Ghazipur and Varanasi were cleared, payments for cases pertaining to Jaunpur remained unpaid despite repeated representations. Consequently, he approached the Court to seek justice for his unpaid dues amounting to ₹4,12,275, along with 18% interest.

Legal Journey

Yadav’s struggle for payment spanned several legal filings:

Initial Representation: Yadav filed a writ petition in 2021, which resulted in a directive from the Court for the authorities to address his grievances.

Contempt Petition: After the directive was ignored, Yadav filed a contempt petition, compelling the District Magistrate to pass an order in October 2022. However, the claims were rejected on the grounds that the contested cases did not directly involve Gaon Sabhas.

Subsequent Writ Petitions: Yadav challenged the rejection through another writ petition in February 2023, which directed him to make a fresh representation. Despite this, his claim was dismissed again in July 2023, prompting the current petition.

Court's Observations

The Division Bench comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit scrutinized the petitioner’s engagement terms. It was noted that Yadav was appointed to appear in all cases where Gaon Sabhas were a party, regardless of whether the cases pertained to fair price shops, housing schemes, or other issues.

The Court emphasized the following points:

There was no prior communication or instruction that exempted Yadav from appearing in specific case types.

Professional fees for similar cases in Varanasi, Ghazipur, and Chandauli had been paid, highlighting inconsistency in the treatment of Yadav’s claims for Jaunpur.

The rejection of fees appeared arbitrary and lacked a sound legal basis.

Judgment

Declaring the District Magistrate’s rejection order as arbitrary and mala fide, the High Court quashed the impugned decision. It directed the District Magistrate, Jaunpur, to reconsider Yadav’s claims and release the outstanding fees for cases where he represented Gaon Sabhas.

The Court concluded that denying rightful claims without valid justification undermines the professional dignity and financial entitlement of advocates. The judgment reinforces the principle that administrative authorities must act transparently and fairly when settling contractual obligations.

Implications

This decision not only brings relief to the petitioner but also underscores the importance of honoring contractual terms between government entities and legal professionals. It sets a precedent for consistent and fair treatment of advocates engaged in public service roles