The Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition claiming that Class IV employees in Uttar Pradesh district courts were being forced to do household work at judges’ residences. The Court ruled that the petition was not maintainable, as the association lacked legal authority to file it. It also stated that carrying legal files to judges’ homes does not qualify as forced labor. The Court noted that affected employees could individually file complaints if they faced such issues.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UTTAR PRADESH: The Allahabad High Court rejected a petition that claimed Class IV employees working in Uttar Pradesh district courts were being forced to do household work at the homes of judicial officers.
Justice Alok Mathur stated that the petition, filed by Anjuman Himayat Chaprasian Sangh UP, was not valid.
“A perusal of the bye laws clearly indicates that the object of the association includes taking action for getting better service conditions etc. but clearly did not provide to take recourse of legal proceedings on behalf of its members and in absence of such authorization the present writ petition is not maintainable under the bye-laws,”
-the Court stated.
The Court also noted that the petitioner could not properly explain why judicial officers should not get assistance from staff at their residences, especially when they work on judgments and legal files there.
Additionally, the Court considered the argument made by the High Court’s lawyer, who stated that carrying legal files from the court to judges’ homes does not amount to forced labor.
“Sri Gaurav Mehrotra has further submitted that facilities are provided to the judicial officers and it is class IV employees who carry file and other material from the courts to the residences and vice versa and, in fact, they assist the judicial officers in dispensation of justice and this cannot be said to be a forced labour or taking any work beyond the prescribed duties.”
The Anjuman Himayat Chaprasian Sangh UP (Nyay Bhibhag), which represents Class IV employees, had requested the Court to stop judicial officers from using them for personal household work beyond official duty hours.
However, the High Court’s lawyer opposed the petition and questioned its validity.
It was argued that if any employee was being forced to work at a judicial officer’s residence, they could file a complaint individually.
“A perusal of the bye laws which has been annexed by the petitioner, would indicate that the associations is not authorized to take recourse to legal proceedings to redress the grievance of its members and and even if any resolution is passed authorizing certain persons to file a writ petition the same would be unauthorized act as per the bye laws of the petitioner association,”
-advocate Gaurav Mehrotra added.
The Court also observed that the petitioner’s lawyer could not deny the fact that affected court staff members had the right to approach the Court on their own to resolve their issues.
Advocate Anil Kumar Pandey represented the petitioner in the case.
CASE TITLE:
Anjuman Himayat Chaprasian Sangh UP vs State of UP.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on CJI Sanjeev Khanna
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
