1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

               “…to pass an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the pending consolidated honorarium of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only) per month for a period of 25 months from 01.05.2022 to 31.05.2024, despite the services having been rendered by the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Provisions of the G.O.Rt.No. 696 dt.18.12.2021 beside violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith pay the petitioner the entire arrears of honorarium amounting to Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) along with interest at such rate as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.”

2. Heard Mr. Gopi Krishna J, learned counsel, representing Mr. P. Pankaj Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. In spite of several opportunities, the respondents chose to remain silent.

3.1. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the petitioner is an Advocate having more than 35 years of professional experience. He was appointed as Government Pleader for the District and Sessions Judge’s Court, Adilabad, for a period of three years from 20.12.2021 to 19.12.2024, on a consolidated honorarium of Rs.60,000/- per month, pursuant to G.O.Rt.No.696 dated 18.12.2021. The petitioner assumed charge on 20.12.2021 and continued to discharge his duties as Government Pleader until 31.05.2024. However, the honorarium payable to him was released only up to April, 2022, leaving an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- towards 25 months’ honorarium unpaid. Subsequently, the services of the petitioner, along with those of 54 other Law Officers, were discontinued pursuant to G.O.Rt.No.354, Law (General) Department, dated 26.06.2024.

               3.2. The petitioner claims entitlement to the unpaid honorarium in terms of the Telangana Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Instructions, 2000, issued vide G.O.Ms.No.187, dated 06.12.2000. It is stated that similarly situated Law Officers questioned their discontinuation and non-payment of their dues before this Court in W.P.Nos.16935, 17710 and 17764 of 2024. By a common order dated 19.08.2024, the learned Single Judge directed payment of the arrears of salary/honorarium to the concerned Law Officers. The said order was carried in appeal and was upheld. Upon disposal of W.A.No.1138 of 2024 on 27.11.2024, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 30.10.2025 to the District Collector, Adilabad, requesting release of the outstanding honorarium of Rs.15,00,000/-. As the said amount was not paid, the petitioner approached this Court by invoking its writ jurisdiction, seeking appropriate relief in respect of the unpaid honorarium.

4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, having been appointed as Government Pleader for the District and Sessions Judge’s Court, Adilabad, the petitioner was entitled to a consolidated honorarium of Rs.60,000/- per month in terms of G.O.Rt.No.696 dated 18.12.2021, read with G.O.Ms.No.187, Law Department, dated 06.12.2000. It is contended that the petitioner continuously discharged his duties as Government Pleader from 01.05.2022 to 31.05.2024, but the honorarium payable for the said period was not released by the respondents. Consequently, a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-, representing 25 months’ honorarium at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per month, remains outstanding. It is further submitted that withholding the petitioner’s honorarium, despite his having rendered services during the relevant period, is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the orders issued by the Government. According to the petitioner, once the services were duly rendered, the respondents could not withhold the honorarium payable therefor without any lawful justification. The petitioner contends that such action is violative of Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

               4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further places reliance upon the common order dated 19.08.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.16935, 17710 and 17764 of 2024 concerning similarly situated Law Officers, whereby directions were issued for payment of arrears of salary/honorarium. It is submitted that the said order was also upheld in writ appeal and that, being similarly situated, the petitioner is likewise entitled to the benefit of the said order insofar as payment of the honorarium due to him is concerned. It is further submitted that, despite the petitioner’s representation dated 30.10.2025 addressed to respondent No.4, the District Collector, Adilabad, seeking release of the outstanding honorarium, the respondent neither released the amount nor took appropriate action on the petitioner’s claim. The petitioner, therefore, contends that the continued non-payment of his legitimate dues is unjustified and warrants interference by this Court. Accordingly, the petitioner seeks issuance of an appropriate writ, more particularly, a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in withholding/non-payment of his consolidated honorarium as arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the applicable Government Orders, and consequently directing the respondents to release the outstanding honorarium payable to him for the period from 01.05.2022 to 31.05.2024, together with interest as this Court may deem appropriate.

5.1. Respondent No.4, the District Collector, Adilabad, in his counter-affidavit, admits that the petitioner was appointed as Government Pleader for the District and Sessions Judge’s Court, Adilabad, for a period of three years commencing from 20.12.2021 and that his tenure was originally scheduled to expire on 19.12.2024. It is submitted that, pursuant to G.O.Rt.No.354 dated 26.06.2024, the services of the petitioner were discontinued and in-charge arrangements were made. It is further submitted that, while continuing the services of certain Law Officers, the Government directed payment of one month’s honorarium/remuneration to the discontinued Law Officers, and that the said amount was also paid to the petitioner. The respondent submits that the petitioner’s honorarium was paid up to April, 2022 and that the subsequent payments could not be made at that stage owing to non-availability of budgetary allocation. According to respondent No.4, after the requisite budget was subsequently allotted, bills towards the pending honorarium were prepared and submitted for processing. However, the amounts could not be credited and certain bills were rejected on account of closure of the relevant financial year. It is further stated that a bill covering the period from 01.05.2022 to 30.09.2022, representing five months’ honorarium, was prepared for a gross amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, out of which Rs.2,70,000/- was payable after deduction of TDS, and the same was submitted to the District Treasury Officer. However, the amount was still awaited from the Government.

               5.2. With regard to the petitioner’s representation dated 30.10.2025, respondent No.4 submits that the office had been requesting the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA) for release of the requisite budget. It is the specific stand of the respondent that the pending honorarium would be disbursed upon receipt of the necessary budget allocation. The respondent further contends that the details of the former Government Pleaders and Assistant Government Pleaders had not been mapped in the IFMIS system, which also resulted in difficulties in processing the bills. It is stated that, in view of the aforesaid issue, a letter dated 14.04.2026 was addressed to the CCLA requesting necessary mapping in the IFMIS system and release of an amount of Rs.16,42,565/- towards the pending dues payable to Government Pleaders and Assistant Government Pleaders. On the aforesaid grounds, the respondent contends that there was no deliberate or arbitrary withholding of the petitioner’s honorarium and that the non-payment was attributable to budgetary constraints and procedural or technical difficulties in processing the bills. The respondent, therefore, seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.

7. In view of the pleadings noticed above, the question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to receive the consolidated honorarium for the period during which he admittedly discharged his duties as Government Pleader, notwithstanding the respondents’ explanation that the non-payment was occasioned by want of budgetary allocation, closure of the financial year, and non-mapping of his particulars in the IFMIS system.

8. The engagement of the petitioner as Government Pleader under the Telangana Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Instructions, 2000, issued in G.O.Ms.No.187 dated 06.12.2000, is professional and contractual in nature. Instructions 8 and 9 govern the tenure and engagement of such Law Officers. This position was considered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Nagaram Anjaiah and others v. State of Telangana, W.P.Nos.16935, 17710 and 17764 of 2024, decided on 19.08.2024, wherein it was held that Law Officers are engaged on a professional and contractual basis and do not hold the status of Government employees. The said view was affirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Nagaram Anjaiah v. State of Telangana, W.A.No.1138 of 2024, decided on 27.11.2024. However, the contractual nature of the engagement does not, by itself, authorise the respondents to withhold the honorarium payable for professional services actually rendered. In the aforesaid batch of writ petitions, while upholding the discontinuation of the concerned Law Officers, this Court nevertheless directed payment of the arrears of salary/honorarium due to them, and the said direction was not interfered with in appeal. The Hon’ble Division Bench thus affirmed the entitlement of the concerned Law Officers to receive payment for services rendered pursuant to their earlier engagement.

9. In the present case, the respondents do not dispute the petitioner’s appointment as Government Pleader on a consolidated honorarium of Rs.60,000/- per month. It is also not in dispute that payment was made to the petitioner up to April, 2022. The counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.4, the District Collector, Adilabad, itself states that bills for the subsequent period were prepared, including a bill covering five months from 01.05.2022 to 30.09.2022 for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, but that payment could not be effected on account of want of budgetary allocation and other procedural difficulties. Thus, the stand of the respondent essentially concerns the non-payment of amounts allegedly due to the petitioner and does not constitute a specific denial of his underlying entitlement to receive honorarium for services actually rendered. The respondents have not disputed that the petitioner continued to discharge his duties during the relevant period.

10. The plea of want of budgetary allocation, closure of the financial year, or difficulties relating to mapping of particulars in the IFMIS system cannot, by itself, defeat an accrued entitlement to payment for services duly rendered. These are matters pertaining to administrative and financial processing. While such circumstances may explain or occasion a delay in disbursement, they cannot, in themselves, constitute a continuing legal justification for withholding remuneration otherwise payable for services that have been rendered and accepted by the State.

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 237, recognised that salaries become due for services rendered and constitute a rightful entitlement, notwithstanding the financial difficulties faced by the State. The principle that financial constraints may explain a delay in payment but cannot, by themselves, extinguish an accrued entitlement is, by parity of reasoning, applicable to the petitioner’s claim for professional remuneration arising from services duly rendered under his contractual engagement.

12. It is also relevant that respondent No.4, by letter dated 14.04.2026, requested the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration to undertake the necessary IFMIS mapping and release an amount of Rs.16,42,565/- towards the pending dues of former Government Pleaders and Assistant Government Pleaders. The existence of pending dues has, therefore, not been completely disputed by the respondents. Nevertheless, the petitioner’s entire claim of Rs.15,00,000/- towards 25 months’ honorarium cannot be directed to be released merely on the basis of the calculation asserted in the writ petition, particularly in the absence of presently disclosed material conclusively establishing the exact amount payable after accounting for all relevant factors. The competent authority must, therefore, verify the petitioner’s appointment and tenure, the actual period for which honorarium was payable, the payments already made, the bills prepared or processed, the permissible statutory deductions, including TDS, and the balance amount, if any, to which the petitioner is legally entitled.

13. The petitioner’s reliance upon Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India need not be examined independently for the purpose of determining the petitioner’s entitlement, since the primary basis for the relief sought is the accrued contractual and professional entitlement arising from his appointment and the services duly rendered by him. Nevertheless, Article 300-A recognises constitutional protection in respect of property, and an accrued monetary entitlement possessing the character of property cannot be withheld except by authority of law.

14. As regards the claim for interest, the grant of interest is discretionary and must depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, having regard to the prolonged delay in payment, the respondents’ own acknowledgment of the existence of pending dues, and the absence of any allegation that the petitioner was responsible for the delay or default in processing the payments, the grant of reasonable interest on the amount ultimately found due would be justified.

15. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to receive the honorarium legally payable for the period during which he actually rendered services as Government Pleader, subject to verification of the payments already made, the applicable terms of engagement, and statutory deductions. The respondents cannot defeat such accrued entitlement merely on the grounds of want of budgetary allocation, closure of the financial year, or non-mapping of particulars in the IFMIS system.

16. Accordingly, respondent No.4/competent authority shall verify the petitioner’s claim with reference to the appointment proceedings, the period of actual service rendered, the honorarium admissible under the applicable Government Orders, the payments already made, the bills processed, and the permissible statutory deductions, and shall release the admitted and verified amount due to the petitioner within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The amount so determined and found payable shall carry simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the respective dates on which the amounts became due until the date of actual realisation, having regard to the principles governing compensation for delayed payment as recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 237 (supra). In the event that any portion of the amount claimed by the petitioner is found to be inadmissible, respondent No.4/competent authority shall communicate to the petitioner a reasoned decision, specifying the basis for such determination.

17. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.