In Brief
An Additional Advocate General of Uttar Pradesh appointed to conduct Supreme Court cases sought payment of 116 outstanding professional bills withheld by the State, claiming his appointments lacked formal notification under Section 24 Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court held that the Additional Advocate General was entitled to payment. The State had consistently accepted his appearances over 18 months through authorized Advocates-on-record without objection, then later denied payment on unauthorized appearance grounds. This was unfair and inequitable. The Court ordered full payment within eight weeks, holding that an administration cannot benefit from services rendered and then retrospectively deny compensation on grounds not raised contemporaneously."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.