The Telangana High Court stated that the relationship between the government and law officers is strictly contractual. These officers do not hold any civil service positions, and their appointments are at the discretion of the government.
The Telangana High Court ruled that the connection between the Government and Law Officers is strictly contractual, meaning they do not hold civil service positions, and their appointments are at the Government’s discretion. This decision came from a Writ Appeal filed by the Law Officers against a previous ruling by a Single Judge. A Division Bench, including Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili and Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, stated that it is the Government’s right to select its legal representatives, emphasizing that the relationship is purely contractual and can be ended by the Government without needing to provide a reason.
Senior Advocate Bramhadandi Ramesh represented the Appellants, while Special Government Pleader Adepu Divya represented the Respondent. The Appellants were appointed as Government Pleaders, Special Government Pleaders, Assistant Government Pleaders, and Additional Government Pleaders (collectively referred to as Law Officers) in various District Courts between 2021 and 2023 for a three-year term with a monthly honorarium. However, the Government terminated their services in June 2024. The Government instructed the District Collectors to pay the Law Officers one month of honorarium and to arrange for eligible Advocates to temporarily fill the positions for six months or until new appointments are made. The District Collectors were also asked to provide lists of five Advocates each for the regular appointment of new Law Officers.
Due to the end of services for Law Officers, new temporary Law Officers were appointed to various Courts in the District Judiciary. The Appellants, unhappy with the discontinuation, filed Writ Petitions to challenge the Government Order and requested that the State continue their services as per their appointment orders, along with all related benefits, including honorarium. The Single Judge dismissed the petitions but ordered the Government to pay any outstanding salaries and honorarium to the Petitioners and other Law Officers who were let go. Dissatisfied with this Common Order, the Appellants took their case to the Division Bench.
The High Court, considering the situation, stated, “The relationship between a client and an advocate is built on trust. It is the client’s right to choose whether to keep or end this relationship. If a client loses trust, they can hire another advocate.” The Court further noted that an Advocate cannot force a client to retain their services if the client no longer trusts them, but the Advocate is entitled to payment for the work done before the client decided to disengage.
When the Government loses trust in the Law Officers, it can end their services and hire new ones. The Law Officers cannot demand that the Government keep them on. The single judge correctly noted that Law Officers, who represent the Government and protect its interests, must have the Government’s trust. It would be unfair to take away the Government’s right to choose its legal counsel.
The Court found that the Appellants did not show any wrongdoing in the Single Judge’s Order, so the Writ Appeal must be dismissed. As a result, the High Court dismissed the Writ Appeal.
Cause Title: Nagaram Anjaiah v. The State of Telangana
