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

               “…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents, more particularly, Respondent No. 5 herein in not releasing the Petitioner’s honorarium amount to a tune of Rs.23,35,935/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand Nine Hundred And Thirty Five Only) along with applicable interest towards professional services rendered by the Petitioner from 22.08.2018 to 22.08.2021 in lieu of G.O. Rt. No. 384, dated 02.08.2018 and from 29.01.2022 to 26.06.2024 in lieu of letter No. C3/1171/2018 dated 29.01.2022 issued by Respondent No.1 herein and despite the Petitioner’s representation dated 06.10.2025 as unlawful, unjust, illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the principles of administrative law, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution and is violative of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the Respondents, more particularly, Respondent No. 5 herein to immediately release the Petitioner’s honorarium amount to a tune of Rs. 23,35,935/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand Nine Hundred And Thirty Five Only) along with applicable interest towards professional services rendered by the Petitioner from 22.08.2018 to 22.08.2021 in lieu of G.O. Rt. No. 384, dated 02.08.2018 and from 29.01.2022 to 26.06.2024 in lieu of letter No. C3/1171/2018 dated 29.01.2022, in the interests of justice and pass such other order or orders…”

2. I have heard Mr. Y. Sai Sankalp, 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, who was appointed as Assistant Government Pleader (AGP) for the Courts of Senior Civil Judge, Principal Junior Civil Judge, and Additional Junior Civil Judge at Manthani, vide G.O. Rt. No. 384 dated 02.08.2018. He assumed charge on 22.08.2018 and claims to have rendered professional services as Assistant Government Pleader from 22.08.2018 to 22.08.2021. Thereafter, pursuant to a temporary arrangement, he was reappointed vide Letter No. C3/1171/2018 dated 29.01.2022 and continued to discharge his duties as Assistant Government Pleader until 26.06.2024, when his services were terminated vide G.O. Rt. No. 353 dated 26.06.2024.

               3.2. The petitioner contends that, despite having rendered services during the aforesaid periods, the agreed honorarium of Rs.36,000/- per month was not paid to him. He claims a sum of Rs.12,96,000/- towards honorarium for the period from 22.08.2018 to 22.08.2021 and a further sum of Rs.10,39,935/- for the period from 29.01.2022 to 26.06.2024, aggregating to Rs.23,35,935/-, apart from applicable interest. It is further his case that, by virtue of the restrictions imposed under the Law Officers Rules, he was precluded from undertaking certain private matters against the Government, thereby adversely affecting his private practice and causing financial hardship. The petitioner states that he submitted a representation dated 06.10.2025 requesting the respondents to release the outstanding honorarium, but no effective action was taken thereon. Aggrieved by such inaction, he has filed the present writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the outstanding honorarium together with applicable interest.

4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner rendered professional services by conducting and defending cases on behalf of the Government during the period of his appointment. It is submitted that, upon expiry of the initial tenure, the petitioner was continued under a temporary arrangement in terms of the Telangana Law Officers Appointment Rules and was thereafter continued pursuant to the proceedings dated 29.01.2022 until his services were terminated vide G.O. Rt. No. 353 dated 26.06.2024. The specific contention of the petitioner is that, notwithstanding his having rendered services throughout the relevant period, the honorarium was not paid to him for even a single month. He, therefore, claims that he is entitled to an aggregate sum of Rs.23,35,935/- towards outstanding honorarium, apart from applicable interest.

               4.2. Learned counsel further submits that, having been duly appointed and having discharged the functions of Assistant Government Pleader, the petitioner is entitled to receive the remuneration prescribed for such engagement, and that the respondents cannot withhold the same after having availed themselves of his professional services. It is contended that non-payment of the honorarium is arbitrary, particularly when similarly situated Assistant Government Pleaders have been paid their admissible honorarium, and is consequently violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that the continued denial of remuneration affects the petitioner’s livelihood and is, therefore, violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

               4.3. It is also submitted that no valid reason was communicated to the petitioner for withholding the honorarium, nor was he afforded any opportunity in the matter. According to the petitioner, such action is contrary to the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel further contends that, having been appointed, permitted to continue as Assistant Government Pleader, and having discharged his duties throughout the relevant period, the petitioner had a legitimate expectation of receiving the honorarium attached to the engagement. It is submitted that, having derived the benefit of the professional services rendered by the petitioner, the State cannot retain such benefit without payment of the remuneration legally due to him.

               4.4. Learned counsel further places reliance on State of Gujarat v. High Court of Gujarat, (1998) 7 SCC 392; All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 288; Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 42; and Yendala Pradeep and others v. State of Telangana and others, in SLP (C) No. 7524 of 2025, decided on 15.09.2025 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in support of the proposition that the State is required to act fairly and ensure timely payment of legitimate remuneration.

               4.5. Learned counsel further submits that, although the petitioner submitted a representation dated 06.10.2025 to respondent No.5, the District Collector, Peddapalli District, seeking release of the outstanding honorarium, no effective response has been received. The petitioner was, therefore, constrained to approach this Court. Accordingly, learned counsel prays for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in releasing the petitioner’s outstanding honorarium as unjust, illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the principles of administrative law, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently directing the respondents, particularly respondent No.5, to immediately release the petitioner’s honorarium amounting to Rs.23,35,935/- together with applicable interest.

5.1. Respondent No.5, the District Collector, Peddapalli admits that the petitioner worked as Assistant Government Pleader for the Courts of Senior Civil Judge and Junior Civil Judge, Manthani, during the periods from 22.08.2018 to 22.08.2021 and from 29.01.2022 to 26.06.2024, on a consolidated honorarium of Rs.36,000/- per month. Accordingly, respondent No.5 addressed Letter No. C3/2199/2025 dated 14.10.2025 to the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA), Telangana, Hyderabad, requesting allotment of a budget of Rs.1,33,19,453/- to enable payment and clearance of arrears due to Law Officers working or having worked in the District. It is stated that an amount of Rs.22,48,777/- was sanctioned by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Telangana, Hyderabad, to Peddapalli District for the financial year 2025-26 vide CCLA Proc. No. Budget/3077889/2025 dated 26.04.2025. Consequently, respondent No.5 issued proceedings for payment of 82 days’ honorarium at the rate of Rs.36,000/- per month, amounting to Rs.96,813/-. The bill was submitted and passed and is stated to be awaiting Government approval, whereupon the amount of Rs.96,813/- pertaining to the petitioner would be credited to him. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been included in the statement forwarded to the competent higher authorities and that, upon receipt of the requisite budget allotment, respondent No.5 would take immediate steps to release the honorarium due to the petitioner.

               5.2. With regard to the petitioner’s claim for applicable interest for the periods from 22.08.2018 to 22.08.2021 and from 29.01.2022 to 26.06.2024, stated to comprise 1,976 days, respondent No.5 submits that a further Letter bearing Lr. No. C3/2199/2025 dated 28.01.2026 was addressed to the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration requesting payment of the total honorarium together with applicable interest. It is further submitted that the writ petitioner’s representation dated 06.10.2025 has already been considered and that necessary proposals have been forwarded to the competent authority. It is stated that partial funds have been sanctioned and processed and that the remaining amount, including interest, if sanctioned, will be released immediately upon receipt of the requisite further budget allotment from the higher authorities. On this basis, respondent No.5 contends that there has been no wilful delay or inaction on his part.

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

7. The question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner, having been duly appointed as Assistant Government Pleader and having admittedly rendered professional services during the relevant periods, can be denied the honorarium payable for such services.

8. The Telangana Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Instructions, 2000, issued in G.O.Ms.No.187, Law Department, dated 06.12.2000, govern the engagement and conditions of service of Government Pleaders and Assistant Government Pleaders. Such engagement is contractual in nature and is governed by the applicable Government Orders and Instructions, as held 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, and in Nagaram Anjaiah v. State of Telangana, W.A.No.1138 of 2024, decided on 27.11.2024.

9. The petitioner relies upon G.O.Rt.No.384 dated 02.08.2018, the consequential proceedings dated 29.01.2022, and G.O.Rt.No.353 dated 26.06.2024, and asserts that he assumed charge on 22.08.2018 and continued to discharge his duties as Assistant Government Pleader until termination of his engagement. The appointment proceedings, certificate of assumption of charge, and the official records placed on record establish that the petitioner did, in fact, render services during the periods claimed. Having availed itself of such professional services, the respondent-authority cannot withhold the honorarium legally payable in respect of the engagement, subject, however, to verification of the precise period of service and the quantum of honorarium admissible under the applicable Government Orders and proceedings.

10. This Court, in Varikota Ramgopal v. The State of Telangana and others, 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 94 (W.P.No.33170 of 2025, decided on 27.04.2026), held that honorarium for services already rendered cannot be denied merely on the ground of want of budgetary allocation. The said principle was considered, inter alia, in the context of legitimate expectation and prevention of unjust enrichment, with reference to State of West Bengal v. B.K. Mondal & Sons, AIR 1962 SC 779. At the same time, the doctrine of legitimate expectation does not, by itself, create an independent entitlement to a particular sum or quantum of payment. The entitlement must ultimately be traced to the governing appointment proceedings, Government Orders, and other applicable terms regulating the engagement.

11. The petitioner is, therefore, required to establish his entitlement to honorarium in accordance with the governing appointment proceedings and Government Orders and to establish the periods for which services were actually rendered. Once such entitlement and service are established, administrative inaction or the absence of budgetary provision cannot, by itself, defeat a legitimate claim for payment of remuneration due for services already rendered and accepted by the State. Likewise, the principle against unjust enrichment supports the proposition that the State, having accepted and utilised the professional services of the petitioner, cannot retain the benefit thereof without making payment in accordance with the applicable terms governing the engagement. The contention founded upon Article 14 of the Constitution of India is required to be examined from the standpoint of fairness, non-arbitrariness, and consistency in State action. However, Article 14, by itself, does not determine the quantum of honorarium payable; such quantum must be ascertained with reference to the applicable appointment proceedings and Government Orders. The plea under Article 21 also requires due circumspection. While the right to livelihood forms part of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21, the immediate issue in the present case is the State’s obligation to pay remuneration lawfully due for professional services actually rendered. Similarly, the plea of violation of the principles of natural justice, by itself, does not determine the petitioner’s substantive entitlement to a particular amount of honorarium.

12. The essential question, therefore, is whether the petitioner was legally entitled to the honorarium claimed for the services actually rendered by him. The contractual nature of the engagement does not, in an appropriate case, bar the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly where the action or inaction of the State is amenable to judicial review. This principle is recognised in ABL International Limited v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited, (2004) 3 SCC 553.

13. The petitioner’s claim for a sum of Rs.23,35,935/- cannot, however, be accepted merely on the basis of the calculation furnished by him. The precise amount legally payable requires verification with reference to the appointment orders and consequential proceedings, the actual periods during which services were rendered, the terms governing entitlement to honorarium, and the Government Orders applicable to such payments, including those governing the periods from 22.08.2018 to 22.08.2021 and from 29.01.2022 to 26.06.2024.

14. Accordingly, respondent No.5 shall consider the petitioner’s representation dated 06.10.2025 and, after verifying the relevant appointment proceedings, certificate of assumption of charge, service particulars, and the Government Orders applicable to the petitioner’s engagement, determine the amount of honorarium legally admissible for the services actually rendered by him. The amount so determined shall be released to the petitioner within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event that any part of the petitioner’s claim is found to be inadmissible, respondent No.5 shall communicate to the petitioner a reasoned decision, setting out the basis for such determination.

15. As regards the petitioner’s claim for interest, respondent No.5 shall, upon determination of the honorarium legally admissible, pay simple interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the respective date(s) on which such amount became due until the date of actual realisation, along with the principal amount, having regard to the principles governing interest on delayed payments recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 237.

16. 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.