- (1.) PETITIONER, who is an Advocate, was engaged earlier by the Municipal Board, now known as Nagar Palika Parishad, Mau to appear on its behalf in the cases in Civil Courts. By order dated 7-2-1996, in place of petitioner another Advocate Sri Satish Chandra Gupta has been appointed. Being aggrieved by it, the petitioner has filed this petition.
(2.) WHEN this case was taken yesterday, we pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner that Sri Satish Chandra Gupta, who has been appointed in place of the petitioner is not a party to the writ petition. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner we adjourned the case yesterday. The petitioner has now moved an application for impleadment of Sri Satish Chandra Gupta. We have allowed the application and direct ed Satish Chandra Gupta to be impleaded as respondent No. 4 to the writ petition. The Supreme Court in the case of State of U. P. v. Ramesh Chandra Sharma, (1995) 6 SCC 527 following its earlier decision in Shrilekha Vidyarthi's case (1991) 1 SCC 212 has held that the appointment of a District Government counsel is "a professional engagement of legal practitioner". This principle ih applicable in the instant case also. Therefore, the rela tionship of the petitioner and the Municipal Board is that of a counsel and the client. A client can always withdraw his brief from his counsel and engage another counsel in his place. Municipal Board therefore, can engage another counsel in place of the petitioner, unless provided otherwise by or under the law or the contract of appointment. In the instant case no such provision or the contract precluding the Municipal Board from engaging another counsel in place of the petitioner has been placed before us. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also prayed that the respon dents may be directed to pay the arrears of salary due to the petitioner for the period during which he has worked before the impugned order was passed. It is not proper to issue any mandatory direction regarding pay ment of unpaid salary because there is no sufficient material on record in this regard. The Municipal Board concerned will, however, pay to the peti tioner whatever is due to him within two months from the date of presenta tion of certified copy of this order before it.
(3.) WITH the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;