Andhra Pradesh High Court.
Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Assignment of Court Staff for Domestic Duties at Judges’ Residences: Amaravati, India – In a significant ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court on July 9 dismissed a petition challenging the long-standing practice of assigning office subordinates of District Courts to perform domestic duties at the residences of Judicial Officers. The Court firmly held that such assignments do not violate existing service norms, asserting that domestic duties form an integral part of the responsibilities of court staff.
A Division Bench comprising Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice Sumathi Jagadam delivered the verdict, rejecting claims that a 1992 administrative circular issued by the High Court limited the scope of duties for office subordinates to exclude domestic work. The bench clarified that the 1992 circular does not present an exhaustive list of duties, and therefore, office subordinates may lawfully be assigned other functions, including domestic work, in line with prevailing practices within the district judiciary.
The petition was filed by the AP Judicial Office Subordinates Association, which contended that the 1992 circular, issued by the Registrar (Administration), did not include domestic duties within the specified scope of work for office subordinates. The Association argued that staff members were being deputed to Judges’ residences and compelled to work beyond normal office hours, often without sanctioned leave. Alleging instances of harassment and coercion, the Association sought judicial directions to prohibit such assignments altogether.
READ: Delhi High Court Upholds Disability Pension for Soldiers, Rejects Centre’s Plea
In response, the Registrar (Administration) and Registrar (Recruitment) of the High Court countered that the petition was not maintainable, citing that the Association was unrecognized and thus lacked the authority to represent its claimed members. On the merits of the case, they relied on two prior judgments from the erstwhile combined High Court: T.M. Manikumar v. Second Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur (2002) and T.M. Mani Kumar v. Registrar (Administration (2005), both of which had rejected similar claims in the past.
The bench took careful note of these earlier decisions and concluded that the 1992 circular does not, in fact, prevent the assignment of domestic duties to office subordinates. It further affirmed that such assignments have historically been a part of judicial practice. “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 bench stated in its ruling.
READ: No Insurance for Legal Heirs if Driver Caused Accident by Rash Driving: Supreme Court
Justice R Raghunandan Rao and Justice Sumathi Jagadam.
READ: AI Copyright Rulings in the USA Court: Fair Use Upheld, Piracy on Trial
The Court also addressed the petitioner’s arguments regarding specific instances of alleged misconduct and extended working hours. It observed that individual grievances pertaining to harassment, if any, must be raised through proper administrative channels. “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 Court held, drawing a distinction between general service rules and specific complaints of misconduct.
The ruling effectively upholds a long-standing practice within the judiciary, reinforcing theAndhra Pradesh High Court‘s stance on the broad scope of duties that can be assigned to its subordinate staff.
Case Title: AP Judicial Office Subordinates Association vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
COURT ORDER: AP Judicial Office Subordinates Association Vs State of Andhra Pradesh
READ: CJI Gavai Champions Collective Leadership, Addresses Judicial Activism and Reforms
