The Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld assigning court staff for domestic duties at judges’ homes, ruling it doesn’t violate service rules. A Division Bench said the practice follows established norms and doesn’t warrant administrative change.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition challenging the practice of assigning District Court office subordinates to perform domestic tasks at the residences of Judicial Officers, asserting that such duties do not breach service regulations.
A Division Bench comprising Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice Sumathi Jagadam concluded that this practice aligns with established norms.
The Court noted that the 1992 administrative circular from the High Court does not provide a comprehensive list of duties, allowing for lawful assignment of office subordinates to additional roles, including domestic work, as per customary practices in the district judiciary.
The petitioner, the AP Judicial Office Subordinates Association, argued that the 1992 circular issued by the Registrar (Administration) did not encompass domestic responsibilities for office subordinates.
They claimed that staff members were being sent to work at Judges’ homes, often beyond regular office hours and without approved leave. Alleging harassment and coercion, the Association sought judicial orders to prevent such assignments.
In response, the Registrar (Administration) and Registrar (Recruitment) of the High Court contended that the petition was inadmissible, asserting that the Association lacked recognition and authority to represent its claimed members.
On substantive grounds, they referenced two prior judgments from the former combined High Court, T.M. Manikumar v. Second Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur (2002) and T.M. Mani Kumar v. Registrar (Administration) (2005), to support their position that similar claims had previously been dismissed.
The bench considered these rulings and confirmed that the 1992 circular does not prohibit the allocation of domestic responsibilities to office subordinates, noting that such tasks have traditionally been part of judicial practice.
The bench stated,
“It would have to be held that the Circular of 1992 is not an exhaustive list of the duties that are to be performed by office subordinates and other duties may also be given to the office subordinates. The practice in the District judiciary has been that a certain number of office subordinates are attached to the residences of the Judicial Officers for domestic duties. In such circumstances, the claim of the deponent to the affidavit that domestic duties are not part of the duties of the office subordinates cannot be accepted,”
The Court also addressed the petitioner’s concerns regarding specific instances of misconduct and extended working hours, observing that individual grievances about harassment should be raised through appropriate administrative channels.
The Court concluded,
“These are issues which can be raised on the administrative side and necessary steps would be taken on such complaints. Even otherwise, individual acts of alleged mis-behaviour by judicial officers would not mean that the basic duties that can be allotted to office subordinates can be changed,”
The petitioner contended that office subordinates were being compelled to carry out domestic tasks at the residences of Judges, often exceeding standard working hours and without any official leave.
They highlighted specific instances where office subordinates were forced to work late and faced harassment from certain judicial officers, arguing that these examples demonstrated the inappropriateness of assigning domestic duties to office subordinates.
The petitioner maintained that these incidents were representative rather than exhaustive and urged the Court to intervene by issuing directions to prohibit such domestic assignments.
Case Title: AP Judicial Office Subordinates Association vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Read Attachment
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
