# Manoj Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 11 ILRA 459
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-11-28
- **Case number:** Writ -C No. 28196 of 2023
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf, Vipin Chandra Dixit
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manoj-kumar-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-anr-51074
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

C.S.C.

Advocate's fees-Petitioner is a practicing
advocate-representation
of
petitioner
claiming his professional fees was rejected
for
the
cases
wherein
the
petitioner
represented Gaon Sabha of District Jaunpur.-
petitioner was authorized to appear in all the
cases where the Gaon Sabhas of district
Jaunpur was a party - he appeared before
the Court and assisted the Hon'ble Court in
all the matters- he is entitled to receive
professional fees-the action of respondent
no.2 in denying the professional fees to the
petitioner is arbitrary and malafide-impugned
order set aside.

W.P. allowed. (E-9)

## Text

11 All. Manoj Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
459
same, the letter issued by the DGR dated
June 24, 2024 is relevant as it specifically
states that the petitioner should not be
considered in the selection process again
and his nomination that might have been
sponsored through DGR should be treated
as invalid and cancelled. This is very much
in keeping with the guidelines of the
Standard Operating Procedure (hereinafter
referred to as "the SOP") for sponsorship of
ex-servicemen, officers and JCOs for
management of company owned company
operated (COCO) retail outlets. Clause 5(c)
of the SOP clearly states that the JCOs
should not have availed any other benefit
from DGR/RSB/ZSB earlier. In the present
case, DGR has nominated three persons,
and therefore, the petitioner, who had
already received the benefit of operating
the coco outlet, cannot have any right to
seek the same once again.

5. Counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner has relied upon paragraph 3.1.2
of the Guidelines for Selection of Service
Provider for Manpower & Services at
Company
Owned
Company
Operated
(COCO) Retail Outlets that allows the
persons, who are running the coco outlet to
once again apply. However, these guidelines
are general in nature and would be
superseded by the SOP that operates on exservicemen. The recommendation of the
DGR cannot be given for a second time to the
same person, if other candidates are available.

6. The entire rational of the SOP is
to provide the benefit to ex-servicemen to
meet the financial exigency. Since the
petitioner has already availed the benefit on
an earlier occasion, he is not entitled to apply
once again for the same, specially keeping in
mind that there are three other ex-servicemen,
who are in fray. In light of the same, the writ
petition is dismissed.
7. There shall be no order as to
costs.
----------
(2024) 11 ILRA 459
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J.

Writ -C No. 28196 of 2023

Manoj Kumar Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Alok Kumar Yadav, Vashistha Dubey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Advocate's fees-Petitioner is a practicing
advocate-representation
of
petitioner
claiming his professional fees was rejected
for
the
cases
wherein
the
petitioner
represented Gaon Sabha of District Jaunpur.-
petitioner was authorized to appear in all the
cases where the Gaon Sabhas of district
Jaunpur was a party - he appeared before
the Court and assisted the Hon'ble Court in
all the matters- he is entitled to receive
professional fees-the action of respondent
no.2 in denying the professional fees to the
petitioner is arbitrary and malafide-impugned
order set aside.

W.P. allowed. (E-9)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.
& Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit, J.)

1. Heard Sri Alok Kumar Yadav,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Gireesh Chandra Tiwari, learned Standing
Counsel for the State respondents and
perused the record.
460 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2. This writ petition has been filed
on behalf of petitioner for quashing of
impugned order dated 20.7.2023 passed by
respondent no.2, by which representation of
petitioner claiming his professional fees
was rejected as well as for payment of
Rs.4,12,275/- along with 18% interest as
professional fees for the cases wherein the
petitioner represented Gaon Sabha of
District Jaunpur.

3. The brief facts of the case are
that the petitioner is a practising advocate
before this Court since 2004. The petitioner
was engaged/appointed as panel advocate
to conduct the cases filed against the Gaon
Sabha vide order dated 16.5.2013. The
petitioner was authorized to receive notices
and conduct the cases on behalf of Gaon
Sabhas of Varanasi Division. The Varanasi
Division
includes
districts
Varanasi,
Ghazipur, Jaunpur and Chandauli. The
petitioner had worked with utmost sincerity
and honesty. Unfortunately, the petitioner
was removed from panel of Gaon Sabha on
27.12.2019. The petitioner raised his
professional bills for the cases in which he
represented the Gaon Sabha. The bills
pertains to Gaon Sabhas of District
Ghazipur were cleared by the District
Magistrate, Ghazipur after due verification
and transferred Rs.3,55,350/- in the bank
account of petitioner. Similarly the bills
pertains to Gaon Sabhas of District
Varanasi were also paid to the petitioner.
Almost the bills of Gaon Sabhas of District
Chandauli were paid and few bills remain
unpaid and petitioner has been assured by
the competent authority for payment of the
same. So far as the District Jaunpur is
concerned, in spite of repeated request the
outstanding bills were not cleared by the
respondent no.2. The petitioner had filed
Writ-C No.34606 of 2021 which was
disposed of by the Division Bench of this
Court on 4.3.2022 directing the authorities
concerned to consider the grievance of the
petitioner. In spite of order dated 4.3.2022
no heed was paid by respondent no.2, then
the petitioner had filed Civil Misc.
Contempt Application No.3974 of 2022.
After
filing
contempt
petition,
the
respondent no.2 has passed the order on
15.10.2022 rejecting the claim of the
petitioner merely on the ground that bills
from Sl. No.1 to 39 are relates to fair price
shop, enquiry against Pradhan, Lohia Awas,
Gramin
Awas,
misappropriation
of
government funds, Anganbadi stipend,
ration card and they are not relates to Gaon
Sabha. The petitioner again approached to
this Court by filing Writ-C No.35750 of
2022 and Division Bench of this Court
while dismissing the writ petition vide
order
dated
21.2.2023
permitted
the
petitioner to approach the respondent no.2
for his grievances. The petitioner again
approached to respondent no.2 by filing
detailed representation on 6.3.2023 which
was again dismissed by respondent no.2 by
the impugned order dated 20.7.2023 relying
his earlier order dated 15.10.2022.

4. It is submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner
was appointed as panel advocate to conduct
the cases on behalf of Gaon Sabha of
Varanasi Division. The petitioner appeared
in all the cases in which the Gaon Sabha of
District Jaunpur was a party and notices
were served to the petitioner. The petitioner
did his professional work with sincerity and
with due diligence and assisted the Hon'ble
Court in those matters.

5. It is further submitted that as per
engagement/appointment
letter,
the
petitioner was authorized to receive notices
in all the cases in which the Gaon Sabha
was impleaded as a party and also represent
11 All. Manoj Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
461
Gaon Sabha before the Hon'ble Court and
as such is entitled for professional fees, as
per norms. More so, the payment of
professional fees relates to Gaon Sabhas of
districts Varanasi, Ghazipur and Chandauli
have already been paid by the authorities
without raising any objection but his
rightful claim has been arbitrarily denied
by the respondent no.2. Lastly, it is
submitted
that
from
the
perusal
of
impugned orders there is no allegation for
non-appearance or not conducting the cases
in proper manner have been levelled
against the petitioner. The rightful claim
was denied merely on the ground that in
some of the cases the Gaon Sabha was not
a contesting party and that matters were not
related to Gaon Sabha directly.

6. On the other hand, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of State
submits that the claim of the petitioner has
been sympathetically considered by the
respondent no.2 and after it was found that
the matters related to fair price shop, Lohia
Awas, Prime Minister Awas, proceedings
against Pradhan, family register, Aangabadi
stipend and ration card were not related to
Gaon
Sabha
and
Gaon
Sabha
was
impleaded as proforma party only and as
such the petitioner was not entitled for any
payment in the aforesaid matters.

7. Considered the submissions of
learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.

8. From the bare perusal of
engagement/appointment
order
dated
16.5.2023, it is apparent that the petitioner
was
appointed/engaged
for
Varanasi
Division to appear on behalf of Gaon
Sabha. The petitioner was authorized to
receive notices and to appear on behalf of
Gaon Sabha of Varanasi Division for all
matters. The Varanasi Division includes
districts Varanasi, Ghazipur, Janpur and
Chandauli.
The
relevant
extract
of
engagement letter dated 16.5.2013 is
reproduced hereunder:-

"महोिय,

उपयुयक्त कवषयक शासनािेश संख्या-2180(2)/12-2009-10-3 (34)/93, किनांक 02 कसतम्बर, 2009 को
अविकमत करते हुए शासनािेश संख्या-1505/1-2-201310-3 (34)/93 किनांक 16 मई 2013 के िम में मुझे यह
कहने का कनिेश हुआ है मा० उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाि / लखनऊ
बेंच लखनऊ के समक्ष स्तर से योकजत होने वाले गांव सभा के सभी
मुकिमों (ररट याकचकाओं / अपीलों आकि) में गांव सभा व अन्य
की ओर से मा० न्यायालय में उपकस्थत होने और पैरवी करने हेतु
अकधवक्ताओं के मध्य कनम्नानुसार कायय का बटवारा ककया जाता हैिः

ि०सं० अकधवक्ता ( गांव सभा)
का नाम
आ
वंकटत मडडल
1
श्री महेश नारायण कसंह
स
हारनपुर
2
श्री अनुज कुमार
कच
त्रकूट
3
श्री धमयिेव चौहान
िे
वीपाटन
4
श्री मनोज कुमार यािव
वा
राणसी
5
श्री राम बाबू यािव
कव
न्ध्याचल
6
श्री बृज कुमार यािव
का
नपुर
7
श्री किवाकर कसंह
इ
लाहाबाि
8
श्री आनन्ि कुमार यािव
झाुँ
सी
9
श्री रमेश चन्र उपाध्याय
आ
जमगढ़
10
श्री अमरेश कसंह
ब
रेली
11
श्री योगेन्र नाथ यािव
ल
खनऊ
12
श्री राजेश यािव
मे
रठ
462 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
13
श्री
अरूण
कुमार
श्रीवास्तव
मु
रािाबाि
14
श्री
आशीष
कुमार
श्रीवास्तव
आ
गरा
15
श्री मनु कसंह,
अ
लीगढ़
16
श्री जय कुमार
ब
स्ती
17
श्री आजाि खान
फै
जाबाि
18
श्री ताररका मकबूल खान
गो
रखपुर

2- उक्त अकधवक्ताओं द्वारा पैरवी करने पर
िेय फीस गांव सभा के संकचत कोष से वहन की जायेगी।
कृपया उक्त आिेशों से अपने कनयंत्रणाधीन
समस्त अकधकाररयों को अवगत कराने का कि करें।
भविीय,
(ककशन कसंह अटोररया)
प्रमुख सकचव"

9.

From
bare
perusal
of
engagement/appointment letter dated 16.5.2023, it
is apparent that the petitioner was authorized to
appear in all the cases (writ petitions/appeals) in
which Gaon Sabha was a party. It is nowhere
mentioned that petitioner was not required to
appear in the cases which relates to fair price shop,
Lohia Awas, Prime Minister Awas, proceedings
against Pradhan, family register, Aangabadi
stipend and ration card.

10. Since the petitioner was authorized
to appear in all the cases where the Gaon Sabhas
of district Jaunpur was a party and the copy of the
writ petitions/appeals were served upon the
petitioner and he appeared before the Court and
assisted the Hon'ble Court in all the matters, he is
entitled to receive professional fees.

11. Learned Standing Counsel has failed
to point out any communication served upon the
petitioner that petitioner was not required to
appear on behalf of Gaon Sabha in the cases,
which relates to fair price shop, Lohia Awas,
Prime Minister Awas, proceedings against
Pradhan, family register, Aangabadi stipend
and ration card. Since the petitioner was
authorized to receive notices in all the matters
where the Gaon Sabha was a party and he
appeared before the Court and assisted the
Court, the petitioner is entitled for professional
fees. The action of respondent no.2 in denying
the professional fees to the petitioner is
arbitrary and malafide. It may be noted that the
professional fees for the district Varanasi,
Ghazipur and Chandauli have already been
paid to the petitioner for all the cases in which
he appeared on behalf of Gaon Sabha. In light
of the same, the impugned order dated
20.7.2023 is liable to be set aside.

12. In view of above, the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned order dated 20.7.2023 is
set-aside. The respondent no.2 District Magistrate,
Jaunpur is directed to re-consider the claim of the
petitioner and pay the outstanding professional
fees to the petitioner for the cases, where notices
for Gaon Sabhas of District Jaunpur were served
upon him and he represented the Gaon Sabha
before the Court.

13. The writ petition is allowed
accordingly.
----------
(2024) 11 ILRA 462
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J.

Writ -C No. 36846 of 2024

Sukramapal ...Petitioner
Versus
Chief Election Commissioner & Ors.
 ...Respondents