The Telangana High Court has upheld a decision by a single judge to dismiss a petition challenging the Congress government's move to remove government lawyers appointed by the previous Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) government in various District Judiciary courts between 2021 and 2023.
The affected law officers—Government Pleaders, Special Government Pleaders, Assistant Government Pleaders, and Additional Government Pleaders—had challenged the government order issued on June 26, arguing that they were not provided an opportunity to be heard before their services were discontinued.
A division bench comprising Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili and Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty ruled that the State has the authority to terminate the engagement of law officers by giving a one-month notice and paying an equivalent honorarium in lieu of the notice period. The Court further emphasized that such appointments are made at the discretion of the government and can be terminated without the need for any justification.
"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 added.
"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. However, an advocate is entitled to the fee for the services rendered to the client before his/her disengagement," the bench emphasized.
The Court stated that if the government loses confidence in its law officers, it is within its rights to terminate their services.
"Therefore, learned single judge has rightly observed 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 and thus, it would be unreasonable to deprive the Government of such freedom and discretion to appoint counsel of its choice," the Division Bench said in conclusion.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy