Law Officers Performing Full-Time Duties Can't Be Treated As Contractual; Entitled To Medical Benefits, Earned Leaves: P&H High Court
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that Assistant Advocate Generals (AAGs) and Deputy Advocate Generals (DAGs) engaged by the State of Haryana are entitled to Leave Travel Concession (LTC), medical reimbursement and earned leave, observing that the State cannot deny core service benefits solely on the basis of the nomenclature of...
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that Assistant Advocate Generals (AAGs) and Deputy Advocate Generals (DAGs) engaged by the State of Haryana are entitled to Leave Travel Concession (LTC), medical reimbursement and earned leave, observing that the State cannot deny core service benefits solely on the basis of the nomenclature of “contractual engagement”.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil said, "the petitioners as AAG/DAG are performing duties with higher responsibility and quantum of work than the other Law Officers working in various departments of the State Government. The petitioners not only plead cases and defend the State of Haryana in the Courts but are also made to given legal opinions, vetting of replies/written statements consultation with the Officers of the department related to the case of the State and other administrative assignments as asked by the Advocate General, Government of Haryana."
Therefore, being deprived of their private practice, the denial of such benefits like LTC, Medical reimbursement and other emoluments tantamount to putting them at discrimination with the Law Officers such as ADAs, DDAs and DAs deputed in Government Departments, the Court added.
The petitioners, appointed as DAGs and AAGs pursuant to a public advertisement dated 29.12.2017, were engaged initially for one year, extendable annually. Their appointments were governed by engagement letters dated 30.06.2018, which placed them on revised pay scales under the 6th Central Pay Commission along with Non-Practicing Allowance and usual allowances sanctioned by the State Government.
Subsequently, by order dated 18.08.2018, their pay was revised under the 7th Central Pay Commission Pay Matrix.
Following audit objections, the State sought to re-fix their pay and recover alleged excess salary. Show cause notices and recovery orders were issued. The petitioners approached the High Court challenging the reduction in pay scale and the recovery orders, and also sought parity in increments, fixed medical allowance, medical reimbursement, LTC, earned leave and related benefits.
During the pendency of the petition, the State conceded most of the reliefs sought, including restoration of higher pay scales, refixation of increment date from July to January 2019, and enhancement of fixed medical allowance. The dispute ultimately narrowed to denial of medical reimbursement, LTC and earned leave.
The State argued that the petitioners were engaged purely on contract under the Haryana Law Officers (Engagement) Act, 2016. Their engagement was terminable and did not confer the status of Government employees.
As contractual appointees, they were not entitled to LTC, medical reimbursement or earned leave, it added.
The petitioners contended that they were appointed against sanctioned posts pursuant to a public advertisement.They draw salary under regular pay scales under the Haryana Revised Pay Rules, 2016.
It was submitted that their remuneration is charged to the Consolidated Fund under the “Salary” head and tax is deducted as in the case of regular employees.
When Lawyer's Client Is State, Responsibility Is Constitutional
After analysing the submissions, the Court observed that when the Government engages lawyers to represent it, though the character of that engagement does not ipso facto metamorphose into ordinary employment but the institutional responsibility remains heavy. The relationship between a lawyer and his client whether an individual or the State, occupies a position of trust and confidence.
When the client is the State, this responsibility acquires a constitutional dimension, for the lawyer then becomes an instrument in the administration of justice affecting the public at large, it added.
Law Officers Of State Cant Simply Be Termed As 'Constractual'
There the Court opined that the engagement of legal professionals as law officers of the State cannot be simply termed as "contractual" in nature to deny fairness and parity in service benfits. In today's times, State is the largest litigant and its decisions touch every sphere of civil, economic and social life. Law Officers representing the State stand at the confluence of executive action and judicial scrutiny.
Their role is neither transient nor ornamental, it is structural to constitutional governance with a constitutional obligation to protect the interest of the State with diligence and integrity, it added.
Justice Moudgil emphasised that once the State engages legal professionals, prohibiting private practice and placing them under continuous institutional responsibility, it must ensure that their service conditions reflect fairness and dignity. Accordingly, the engagement of legal professionals as Law Officers of the State cannot be dismissed as merely “contractual” for the purpose of denying them fair and equitable service benefits.
Given the constitutional significance of their duties, the continuous and indispensable nature of their work, and the heavy responsibility they bear in representing the sovereign before courts, such officers are entitled to be treated on par with regular incumbents, added the judge.
The Court said to restrict their entitlements on the basis of nomenclature alone would be arbitrary, undermine the dignity of the profession, and contravene the principles of equality, consistency, and legitimate expectation inherent in constitutional governance.
It highlighted that, it is undisputed that the petitioners were appointed pursuant to a public advertisement against sanctioned posts, they draw salary in regular pay scales under the Haryana Revised Pay Rules, 2016, they receive dearness allowance and annual increments, that their remuneration is charged to the Consolidated Fund of the State under the salary head and tax is deducted as in the case of regular employees and that they are expressly prohibited from undertaking private practice.
They discharge full-time responsibilities including representing the State before constitutional courts, tendering legal opinions, vetting pleadings, and advising Government departments and their role is neither casual nor consultative but is institutional and continuous in nature, it said.
The bench pointed that the State, while conceding parity in pay and increments, seeks to deny them Leave Travel Concession, earned leave and medical reimbursement on the ground that their engagement is contractual under the Haryana Law Officers (Engagement) Act, 2016.
"This argument, if accepted, would permit the State to appropriate the services of full-time Law Officers with all incidents of regular service, yet withhold essential benefits that secure rest, health and familial well-being," the judge opined.
The Court said that the Constitutional jurisprudence does not permit such selective parity. Once the State treats the petitioners as regular salaried officers for all substantive purposes, it cannot, without rational basis, carve out exceptions that operate to their detriment. Nor can the State rely upon the contractual form of engagement as a shield.
Public employment even when contractual is subject to constitutional discipline. Where the substance of the relationship reveals exclusivity, continuity and institutional integration, the Court must look beyond labels to reality, it added.
Law Officers Occupy High Esteem Within Constitutional Frame
Justice Moudgil pointed that it is of particular significance that the petitioners are prohibited from engaging in private practice and by foregoing independent professional opportunities, they dedicate themselves entirely to the service of the State.
"To deny them entitlements such as earned leave and medical reimbursement would be to impose the rigours of public service without affording its minimal securities. This Court further observes that Law Officers occupy a position of high esteem within the constitutional framework."
The institutional respect due to such officers is reflected not in mere rhetoric but in the grant of equitable service conditions that recognize the importance and responsibility of their office and to deny them earned leave, LTC and medical reimbursement benefits which secures dignity, rest and health would amount to treating them as inferior functionaries despite their higher constitutional responsibility, added the Court.
In the present case, the Court noted that as far as the contention of the State that the petitioners accepted the engagement being governed by the provisions of 2016 Act is concerned, does not find favour in the mind of this Court, in fact admittedly the petitioners were appointed on 30.06.2018 i.e., prior to the above-said act coming into force and even after 2016 it is nowhere the case of the respondent/State that the petitioners were appointed under the said Act.
In fact the initial appointment of the petitioners, which was made on 30.06.2018 has been retained by renewal of engagement from time to time as such the provisions of Haryana Law Officers Engagement Act, 2016 would not apply to the case of the petitioners, which otherwise also was given effect in the year 2019 alone, when certain new appointments in the office of Advocate General Haryana were made, whereas the appointment of the petitioners was only renewed/retained as it was in existence on that date, the judge said.
Doctrine Of Legitimate Expectation
The Court further explained that the doctrine of legitimate expectation also comes into play. The engagement letters stipulate entitlement to “usual allowances as sanctioned by the Haryana Government from time to time.” The State, by extending successive revisions of pay scales and allowances in line with Government employees, has created a consistent course of conduct giving rise to legitimate expectation that the petitioners will not be selectively excluded from core service benefits.
"Deviation from such established practice must satisfy the test of reasonableness, which the respondents have failed to demonstrate," it remarked.
In the light of the above, the Court opined that the petitioners are entitled to the relief claimed by them in terms of LTC, Medical reimbursement and other emoluments.
Consequently, the State was directed to release benefits like LTC, Medical reimbursement and other benefits/emoluments to the officers appointed as AAG/DAG including the petitioners.
The Court made it clear that the exercise shall be completed within a period of 4 weeks from date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.
Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, Advocate and Ms. Komal Klana, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. Amit Sahni, Addl. AG Haryana
Title: SHRUTI JAIN & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.