NANDA BALLABH TIWARI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Nanda Ballabh Tiwari
State of Uttarakhand and others
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellants.
(2.) Present Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment-dated 14.03.2012 and decree dated 20.03.2012 passed by the District Judge, Nainital in Civil Appeal No.43 of 2011 "State of Uttarakhand and another Vs. Nanda Ballabh Tiwari", by which the judgment and decree dated 25-11-2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Nainital, decreeing the suit of plaintiff/appellant herein, has been set aside.
(3.) The case of the plaintiff/appellant is that he was engaged by the State Government as Chief Standing Counsel vide G.O. No. 422-EK dated 27-12-2002 in the High Court of Uttarakhand. Subsequently, his remuneration was increased and was made equivalent to the post of Additional Advocate General and became payable as per G.O. dated 12-09-2005. Till February, 2007, the plaintiff/appellant was regularly paid his fees as per the G.O. dt. 12-09-2005, which was admissible for the post of Additional Advocate General. On 07-03-2007, the plaintiff/appellant resigned from his post. The resignation was accepted by the State Government vide letter dt. 08-03-2007. However, the plaintiff/ appellant was requested by the State Government to continue as Chief Standing Counsel till the new arrangements are made as he was working on the date of resignation. He, accordingly, worked as usual from 08.03.2007 to 02.04.2007. The plaintiff/appellant submitted his bills of fees etc. for that period. The bills were sent to the State Govt. and were sanctioned by the State Govt. and the Advocate General was directed to make the payment as per G.O. dt. 12-09-2005. However, the Advocate General did not make payment to the plaintiff and again sent the bills to the State Govt. The State Govt. then sent a letter dt. 14/15-5-2008 to the Advocate General to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to the fees of Additional Advocate General Grade till 07.03.2007 only and after that he is entitled to the fees which was earlier payable for the post of Chief Standing Counsel. The plaintiff again represented in the matter and the then Advocate General vide his D.O. letter 1078 dt. 13.09.2010 agreed with the G.O. dt. 27-02-2008 and referred the matter to the State Govt. for necessary action. In reply to the said letter of the Advocate General dt. 13-09-2010, the State Govt. directed the Office of the Advocate General vide Govt. letter dt. 20-10-2010 to make payment of the fees to the plaintiff. The said letter dt. 20-10-was not complied with. The plaintiff then sent a notice under Section 80 C.P.C. and thereafter, filed the suit for recovery of the amount of fees etc. The suit was contested by the respondent by filing the written statement. The learned trial Court after examination of pleadings, documentary and oral evidence, adduced by the parties on record and referring the Govt. orders dt. 18-03-2006 and letter of State Govt. dt. 08-03-2007, held that the plaintiff was never given any separate appointment letter for the post of Additional Advocate General and his post of Chief Standing Counsel was upgraded and he was holding only one post of Chief Standing Counsel (Addl. A.G. Grade) on the date 07-03-2007 which was the date of his resignation and since on that date he was requested to continue to work as usual, he is entitled to the fees what he was getting on that date. The trial Court, accordingly, decreed the suit with cost and also awarded the interest. The respondent No.3, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dt. 25-11-2011 passed by the learned trial Court, filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Nainital being Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2011. The learned District Judge, Nainital allowed the appeal vide judgment dt. 14-03-2012 and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. However, the plaintiff/appellant was held to be entitled for the payment as per post of Chief Standing Counsel after the date 07-03-2007 without upgradation made vide G.O. dated 18-03-2006. Being aggrieved by the judgment & decree passed by the learned District Judge Nainital, the present Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant before this Court.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.