[2025:RJ-JP:45497] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1626/2005 Ms. Madhu Gupta D/o Shri G.C. Gupta Advocate, R/o Bharat Mata Path, Jamana Lal Bajaj Marg, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. 2. State of Rajasthan through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur. The Secretary, Law And Justice, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. The Director, Department Of Land And Building Tax, Mini Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. The Director, Directorate Local Bodies, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta, Adv. Ms. Madhu Gupta, Adv. (in person) Mr. Deepak Gupta, Adv. Mr. Madan Mohan Gupta, Adv. Mr. Anuj Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Kumar Sharma, AGC with Mr. Chandra Shekhar, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 12/11/2025 By order dated July 14, 1995 passed by respondent Law Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Panel Lawyers were appointed to argue the cases before Rajasthan High Court Bench Jaipur, on behalf of several departments of State of Rajasthan. The petitioner along with Ms. Shashi Jain, Advocate was also appointed as Panel Lawyer to argue the cases on behalf of State of Rajasthan. In the said order, conditions for appointments were also given. The condition no.1 is with regard to fees payable to panel lawyers. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that the respondents have violated the condition No. 1 and refused to pay [2025:RJ-JP:45497] (2 of 3) [CW-1626/2005] her fees as per condition No. 1. It is also argued that Ms. Shashi Jain, Advocate, who was also appointed as panel lawyer along with her by the same order, preferred a writ petition (SBCWP No.1940/2000) with similar relief and same has been allowed by order dated 18.10.2002. In reply to writ petition, it has been averred by respondents that the petitioner was appointed to argue the cases in the court of Land & Building Tax Department (Divisional Commissioner), Jaipur and therefore, her case is distinguishable from the cases of other panel lawyers who were appointed to argue the cases before the High Court. He, however, failed to controvert the fact that writ petition, preferred by Ms. Shashi Jain, Advocate has already been accepted. I have pondered over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. As per the order dated July 14, 1995, the petitioner along with Ms. Shashi Jain, Advocate was appointed as panel lawyer. Several other advocates were also appointed as panel lawyers by the said order. There is no distinction between the panel lawyers for arguing the cases before the High Court and other courts. Therefore, it is not correct on the part of respondents to plead that the case of petitioner was distinguishable with that of other panel lawyers. I have also gone through order dated 18.10.2002 whereby writ petition filed by Ms. Shashi Jain, Advocate, for similar relief, was allowed. The case of the present petitioner is also squarely covered with the case of Ms. Shashi Jain, Advocate. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is [2025:RJ-JP:45497] (3 of 3) [CW-1626/2005] entitled to receive fees in accordance with condition No. 1 of the order dated 14.07.1995. The petitioner is directed to furnish list of the cases pleaded by her, to the respondent Law and Justice Department whereupon same may be verified. After verification by the Department, she may be paid fees as per order dated 14.07.1995. The petitioner shall also be entitled interest @ 6% per annum on the due amount. The respondents shall ensure compliance of this order within ninety days from today. The writ petition stands allowed in these terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /92