As per case facts, the appellant, appointed as Advocate General of Punjab, had his fees initially fixed at Rs. 100 per civil writ case. Subsequently, the State Government issued a ... notification amending the rules, which significantly reduced the fees payable for cases decided by a single judgment or covered by earlier judgments, introducing a cap on total fees for connected cases. The appellant protested this unilateral alteration and insisted on being paid according to the original terms. His fee bills, prepared based on the old fee structure, were returned, with a directive to submit revised bills as per the new notification. Consequently, he filed a writ petition challenging this decision, which was dismissed by the High Court. The question arose whether the State Government could unilaterally alter the terms of remuneration for the Advocate General during his tenure, and if the relationship between the Advocate General and the State was primarily that of an advocate and a client. Finally, the Supreme Court held that the terms of fees for the Advocate General are not static and can be altered, as the original notification itself allowed for amendments from time to time. The Court clarified that the relationship between the Advocate General and the State Government is fundamentally that of an advocate and a client. Therefore, the client (State) is entitled to propose fees, and the Advocate General cannot compel the State to continue engagement on terms it no longer agrees to. The Court dismissed the appeal but directed the State to pay the appellant the amount due as per the amended notification, along with interest, acknowledging the delay in payment.