The Telangana High Court confirmed that the relationship between the Government and its Law Officers is contractual, allowing for termination at the Government’s discretion. The Court compared this to a client’s right to engage or disengage an advocate based on trust. The Division Bench dismissed appeals from terminated Law Officers, upholding the Government’s authority in these matters.
Telangana: The Telangana High Court has reiterated that the relationship between the Government and its Law Officers is purely contractual, emphasizing that Law Officers do not hold any civil posts and their appointments can be terminated at the discretion of the Government.
“… it is clear that it is for the Government to choose the counsel of its choice and the relationship between the Government and Law Officers is purely contractual and they do not hold any civil posts. It is also clear that these appointments are at the pleasure of the Government which can be terminated without giving any reason,”
the Division Bench of Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili and Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty observed.
The case arose from a Writ Appeal filed by several Law Officers—including Government Pleaders, Special Government Pleaders, Assistant Government Pleaders, and Additional Government Pleaders—who contested the termination of their services by the Telangana Government in June 2024.
The Appellants had been appointed on a contractual basis between 2021 and 2023 for three years, with a monthly honorarium. However, the Government disengaged their services mid-term and directed District Collectors to appoint eligible Advocates as temporary replacements for up to six months or until new appointments were finalized.
The terminated Law Officers challenged the Government Order, arguing for reinstatement and continuation of their appointments, along with consequential benefits such as pending honorarium. They filed Writ Petitions, which were dismissed by the Single Judge. However, the Court directed the Government to pay any pending arrears of salary or honorarium. Dissatisfied with this outcome, the Appellants approached the Division Bench.
The High Court unequivocally held that the appointment of Law Officers is based on trust and confidence, likening it to the engagement of advocates by private clients.
“Engagement of services of an advocate by client is based on trust and confidence. It is the prerogative of the client to engage or disengage services of an advocate and if the client loses confidence and trust, he is at liberty to engage services of another advocate of his/her choice,”
the Court remarked.
Drawing parallels, the Court noted that the Government, as a client, retains the right to terminate the services of Law Officers if it loses confidence in them.
“An Advocate cannot insist a client to continue his/her services when the client has lost confidence, trust and expressed his unwillingness to continue his/her services. In the same lines, when the Government loses confidence upon the Law Officers, it is entitled to terminate the services and appoint a new set of Law Officers,”
the Bench added.
The High Court found no illegality or irregularity in the Single Judge’s Order, affirming the Government’s discretion to appoint or disengage Law Officers. The Bench observed that continuing to engage counsel without trust and confidence would be unreasonable.
“Law Officers who are basically engaged to represent the Government and take care of the Government’s interest should enjoy the trust and confidence of the Government, and thus, it would be unreasonable to deprive the Government of such freedom and discretion to appoint counsel of its choice,”
the Court stated.
The Division Bench dismissed the Writ Appeal, underscoring that the Appellants failed to establish any grounds to challenge the Single Judge’s decision.
This ruling reaffirms the principle that the engagement of Law Officers by the Government is contractual, discretionary, and rooted in mutual trust, with no vested rights for the officers to demand continuation.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE