Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:13076-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25956 of 2024 Petitioner :- Vineet Kumar Mishra And Another Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. Petitioners had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ C No. 2515 of 2015, which came to be disposed of by the following orders on 5.2.2024: "1. Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused the record, writ petition is disposed of with a direction, subject to the petitioners filing their fresh claims before respondent No. 3 to claim honorarium supported by their personal affidavit annexing thereto all relevant documents on which they may seek to rely, that claim may be dealt with and decided on its own merits, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of compliance shown by the petitioner. If any part of the claim is to be rejected, brief reason for the same may also be communicated to the petitioners. 2. Any amount found due and payable to the petitioners may be paid out with a further period of three months." It is thereafter that the claim of the petitioners has been examined, but they are not found entitled to any payment, and consequently, the petitioners are before this Court. The writ petition was entertained and on the previous occasion, time was granted to the respondents to obtain instructions. Sri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel has appeared for the respondent-Legal Services Authority and points out that engagement of lawyers for the activities of Legal Services Authority is regulated by the provisions of the National Legal Services Authority (Free and Competent Legal Services) Regulations, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations). Our attention has been invited to the definition clause, where Panel Lawyer and Retainer Lawyer are separately defined in Clauses (eb) and (fa) of the Regulations. The two definition clauses are reproduced hereinafter: "(eb) "Panel Lawyer" means a legal practitioner empanelled as a Panel Lawyer under regulation 8. (fa) "Retainer Lawyer" means a Panel Lawyer designated as the Retainer Lawyer under sub-regulation (9) of regulation 8. " Our attention has further been invited to Clauses 8 (9) and 8 (12) of the Regulations, which provides for payment of honorarium to a retainer lawyer. However, under Regulation 14, a panel lawyer simplicitor is only entitled to fee on contest of cases. The claim of the petitioners has not been allowed as it was found that though they were panel lawyers but they were not assigned any matters and have consequently not earned entitlement to payment of fees. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that other panel lawyers have also been paid retainer lawyer fee and therefore, the petitioners are entitled to payment of honorarium. Nothing is brought on record to show that the petitioners are retainer lawyers. The admitted case of the petitioners is that they are panel lawyers. Once that be so, in terms of the applicable Regulations, their entitlement is merely to receive fee, once they contest the cases. No retainership fee would be admissible to them. In such circumstances, action of the respondents in refusing to pay them retainership fee merits no interference. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 24.1.2025 Noman Digitally signed by :- NOMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad