Plea Filed In Supreme Court Challenging Telangana HC Order Which Upheld Law Officers' Termination From Service After Govt Change

A plea has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging Telangana High Court's order which upheld discontinuation of the services of certain law officers of the state after change in the government noting that the appointment of law officers shall be subject to pleasure of the government.The matter was listed today before a bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra, which posted it to May 5, considering the state counsel's request for time to take fresh instructions. To recapitulate, the legislative assembly elections were held in the state in November 2023, wherefore Congress and its allies emerged victorious against the incumbent Bharat Rashtra Samithi. In June, 2024, the new government issued an order terminating the service of certain law officers who were engaged as Government Pleaders, Special Government Pleaders, Assistant Government Pleaders and Additional Government Pleaders by the erstwhile government in various district Courts.Aggrieved, the law officers approached the High Court, seeking the setting aside of the government order (G.O.Rt.No.354) and a direction to the State that their services in terms of respective orders of appointment be continued, with all consequential benefits, including payment of honorarium, etc. It was contended that a change of government/political party pursuant to the elections did not change the character of the continuing body of the State Government. As such, the new government could not have en-masse discontinued service of the Law Officers. Initially, a single bench held that 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. If the government does not have the freedom to appoint counsel of its choice, it would amount to placing fetters on its decisions and thereby cause interference in the administration. It further held that the petitioners did not have any enforceable right to be continued as Law Officers as their disengagement was in accordance with proviso to Instruction No.9 of G.O. Ms. No.187 (according to which government can terminate services of a Law Officer on 1 month's notice or 1 month's honorarium in lieu of the notice). Be that as it may, the single bench directed the government to pay the arrears of salary, if any, and honorarium to the petitioners and to other law officers whose services were disengaged by the government order of June.Against the single bench order, the petitioners approached the division bench. Upholding the order of the single bench, the Division Bench observed that there was no employer-employee relation between the State and the law officers. It noted that the law officers were appointed, not selected, so their continuation could be subjected to the pleasure and confidence of the government."A perusal of instruction No.9 in G.O.Ms.No.187 indicates that the Government is empowered and entitled to terminate the engagement of Law Officers by issuing one month's notice and also by paying one month honorarium in lieu of one month's notice. Moreover, there is no employer-employee relationship between the State and Law Officers as the same is a contractual relationship. Law Officers are appointed without following any selection procedure and their continuation is subject to pleasure and confidence of the Government. It can also be observed from para 3 of G.O. Rt. No.354 that the District Collectors concerned were requested to pay one month honorarium to the Law Officers," the Division Bench said. Further, it opined that engaging services of an advocate is based on trust and confidence and similar is the case when the government hires one. The government is entitled to terminate services when it loses confidence and law officers cannot insist on continuing the same, the Court added.Challenging the above order(s), the petitioners filed the present petition before the Supreme Court.Appearance: Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam, AoR P Mohith Rao, Advocates J Akshitha, J Venkat Sai, Eugene S Philomene and Dev Sareen (for petitioners); AoR Devina Sehgal, Advocates S Uday Bhanu and Yatharth Kansal (for respondents)Case Title: YENDALA PRADEEP AND ORS. Versus THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 7524/2025Click Here To Read/Download Order

Plea Filed In Supreme Court Challenging Telangana HC Order Which Upheld Law Officers' Termination From Service After Govt Change

Debby Jain

Tags