Punjab & Haryana HC Summons Top Officials Of Army’s Western Command Over Delay In Payment Of Fee To Lawyers, Warns Imposition Of Rs 25 Lakh Cost
Taking a strong note of the delay in clearance of bills of lawyers, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Controller of Defence Accounts, Western Command, to remain present in the court along with the OIC (Legal), Armed Forces Tribunal, Legal Cell on May 26."Ordinarily this Court would not be inclined to summon officers, however, considering that there are nearly 50...
Taking a strong note of the delay in clearance of bills of lawyers, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Controller of Defence Accounts, Western Command, to remain present in the court along with the OIC (Legal), Armed Forces Tribunal, Legal Cell on May 26.
"Ordinarily this Court would not be inclined to summon officers, however, considering that there are nearly 50 such cases/applications in pending cases filed by Advocates claiming their fee and evasive response by the summoned junior officer, there is hardly any option left to explore," it said.
In a stern message, Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj in the order also said that that an exemplary costs of Rs.25 lakhs ought to be imposed upon the authorities for their "neglect and wilful delay" in making payment to the petitioner-counsel, whose bills are allegedly pending for past six years.
"Let the Authorities assign reasons for their failure in making timely payments failing which costs shall be imposed on them for undue harassment of counsel," said the court.
The court was hearing a petition filed lawyer Vikram Bajaj. He is represented by advocate Hari Chand Arora.
Navrang Singh, the OIC (Legal), Armed Forces Tribunal, Legal Cell, told the court that some of the bills raised by the petitioner could not be processed on account of certain discrepancies pertaining to the stamp/signatures or dates and also for want of certified copies of the zimni orders for processing the bills.
Justice Bhardwaj said the case highlights the grievances of the counsel representing the various Units of Armed Forces before various Forums/Armed Forces Tribunals.
"Having discharged their duties defending the interests of the Unit/the Army, bills are raised by the concerned counsel however, numerous petitions/representations have come forth before this Court where the concerned officials have not remitted the payment due to the Advocates on various obscure and immaterial objections. The matter of remittances remain pending for years together holding no valid explanations".
The court added that with a view to avoid payment of any interest on the delayed remittances of the bills, the officials indulge in pressurizing or coercing advocates to submit fresh bills along with certified copies to be obtained afresh.
"The aforesaid process is adopted so as to portray as if the bill in question was never submitted or raised by the Advocate concerned earlier in point of time and had been raised for the first time only then," said the court.
The bench called Bajaj's matter "a classic case" where after having waited for the payments for nearly six years, he approached the court giving details of more than 100 bills that had been submitted.
Bajaj contended that copies of the bills, along with order sheets, had been submitted more than three times. However, the OIC (Legal) had returned the bills for frivolous reasons, such as the absence of a signature, stamp, or date, he told the court
“A bare perusal of the said bills would clearly show that such objections are invalid and prima facie do not exist on the record,” Bajaj said.
The OIC (Legal) submitted that such requirements have been prescribed by the Audit and that they are only empowered to process the bills. He further submitted that they have no control over the payments to be remitted to the concerned counsel, the Court noted.
In response to a query from court that whether any acknowledgement to the counsel is given at the time of the receipt of the bill, he said that there is no such mechanism in place at their office to hand over an acknowledgement to the counsel once he submits the bills.
"No valid explanation has also been put forth as to why the communication regarding the deficiencies in the bills had not been conveyed to the counsel expeditiously to enable them to remove the same. Apparently, the explanation put forth by the respondent Authorities does not inspire any confidence especially when the counsel has specifically submitted that he has submitted the bills twice over. The same is not being processed since it is submitted as a duplicate bill and the Authorities insist on submission of fresh bill," said the court.
It added:
"It is further incomprehensible that the concerned Authority which is responsible for the marking the cases to the counsel to defend the interests of the Army, is not even aware as to whether the fee for defending the cases has been disbursed or not."
The bench noted that OIC (Legal) has “feigned ignorance” on the question as to who is the competent authority for clearance of the bills.
"Such a state of affairs is highly unacceptable. He, however, contends that as per his information the CDA, HQ, WC is the person responsible for ensuring the payments in question are released," it added, while summoning the officer.
Case Title: Vikram Bajaj v. UOI & Ors.
Counsel for petitioner:Mr. H.C. Arora
Counsel for respondent:Mr. Anil Chawla