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 “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...

Law Officers Performing Full-Time Duties Can't Be Treated As Contractual; Entitled To Medical Benefits, Earned Leaves: P&H High Court

Aiman J. Chishti

Tags