A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court of India challenging the Telangana High Court's decision that upheld the termination of several state law officers following a change in government. The High Court had ruled that such appointments are subject to the pleasure of the ruling government, allowing the dismissal.
The matter was taken up on April 17, 2025, by a bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra. After hearing the senior counsel for the petitioners, the State counsel sought additional time to seek further instructions on certain legal issues that arose during the arguments. The Court has now posted the matter for further hearing on May 5, 2025.
Background of the Case:
In the November 2023 legislative assembly elections, the Congress party and its allies formed the new government, defeating the incumbent Bharat Rashtra Samithi. Subsequently, in June 2024, the new administration issued Government Order (G.O.Rt.No.354) terminating the services of various law officers. These officers, including Government Pleaders, Special Government Pleaders, Assistant Government Pleaders, and Additional Government Pleaders, had been appointed by the previous government for different district courts.
Read Also:- Possessing Psychotropic Substances Listed Under NDPS Act Is an Offence Even if Not Mentioned in NDPS Rules: SC
Challenging the mass termination, the law officers approached the High Court, arguing that the change in government did not alter the continuous existence of the state and hence did not justify the discontinuation of their services. They requested the High Court to quash the termination order and direct the state to reinstate them with all consequential benefits, including pending honorarium.
A Single Judge Bench of the Telangana High Court observed that law officers are appointed to represent the government and therefore must have the government’s trust and confidence.
"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," the High Court noted.
The Court also emphasized that law officers do not have an enforceable right to continue in their roles, especially since their appointments are governed by Instruction No.9 of G.O. Ms. No.187. This provision allows the government to terminate their engagement with one month’s notice or one month’s honorarium in lieu of such notice.
Nevertheless, the Single Bench directed the government to pay any pending arrears and honorarium to the terminated law officers.
Unhappy with this ruling, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Division Bench. The Division Bench upheld the earlier judgment, reiterating that law officers are appointed without a selection process and their engagement is contractual.
“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 the pleasure and confidence of the Government,” the Division Bench observed.
The Court further remarked that the role of a legal officer is rooted in trust, and the government is well within its rights to end such engagement if confidence is lost.
“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 said.
Read Also:- Supreme Court: Res Judicata Applies to Criminal Cases, Bars Re-litigation of Settled Issues
It was also recorded in the government order that district collectors had been instructed to pay one month's honorarium to the terminated officers, in compliance with the policy.
The petition before the Supreme Court, titled YENDALA PRADEEP AND ORS. Versus THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 7524/2025, was heard on April 17, 2025.
“After hearing learned senior counsel for the petitioners... the matter be listed on 05.05.2025,” stated the official Supreme Court order.
For Petitioners: Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam, Advocates P Mohith Rao (AoR), J Akshitha, J Venkat Sai, Eugene S Philomene, and Dev Sareen.
For Respondents: Advocates Devina Sehgal (AoR), S Uday Bhanu, and Yatharth Kansal.
The case continues to raise key questions about the rights of law officers appointed under one regime and the extent of the new government’s power to terminate their services upon assuming office. The Supreme Court’s decision in this matter is now awaited on May 5, 2025.
