Andhra Pradesh HC Upholds Practice Of Assigning Domestic Duties To Office Subordinates Of District Courts At Judicial Officers' Residences
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a plea by the AP Judicial Office Subordinates Association, which challenged the practice of office subordinates of District Courts being made to perform unofficial domestic duties at the residences/quarters of Judges, often beyond regular working hours.The petitioner had relied on a Circular dated 24.02.1992 (Circular of 1992), issued by the...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a plea by the AP Judicial Office Subordinates Association, which challenged the practice of office subordinates of District Courts being made to perform unofficial domestic duties at the residences/quarters of Judges, often beyond regular working hours.
The petitioner had relied on a Circular dated 24.02.1992 (Circular of 1992), issued by the Registrar (Administration) of the erstwhile combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh– to argue that the said Circular did not include any domestic services which office-subordinates were mandated to perform.
A Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice Sumathi Jagadam, relied on the case of T.M. Mani Kumar vs. Registrar (Administration), High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and Anr (T.M. Mani Kumar 2005)—where the Andhra Pradesh High Court had dismissed a contention that the Circular of 1992 acts as a bar against any domestic duties, and held—
“…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.”
Moreover, with regard to the issue of individual harassment complaints against Judicial Officers by office subordinates carrying out domestic duties, the Division Bench held,
“…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.”
Background
It was the case of the petitioner that the office subordinates were being made to perform domestic duties at the residences/quarters of Judges, many a times beyond the normal working hours in a day and without any official leave being given to them. Certain incidents of office subordinates being forced to work beyond the normal hours and incidents of harassment by some judicial officers had also been raised to contend that no domestic work could be given to office subordinates.
The petitioner argued that such incidents were indicative and not exhaustive and subsequently submitted that there was a need for the Court to issue directions to prohibit such domestic service.
On the contrary, the Registrar (Administration) of the High Court (Respondent 2) and the Registrar (Recruitment) of the High Court (Respondent 3) relied on the judgments of the High Court in T.M. Manikumar vs. Second Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur and Ors (T.M. Mani Kumar 2002) and T.M. Mani Kumar (2005). It further challenged the maintainability of the petition as the petitioner association was not recognised and such an association could not represent its alleged members.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court in T.M. Mani Kumar 2002 and T.M. Mani Kumar 2005 had dealt with the same issue as the present case—whether an office subordinate can be assigned domestic duties at a judicial officer's residence. In the former case, the High Court rejected the subordinate's claim that domestic work fell outside the scope of the Circular of 1992. Later, in T.M. Mani Kumar 2005, the same argument was raised after dismissal from service of the petitioner, citing the 1992 Circular. Again, the High Court held that the contentions were not valid and dismissed the writ petition.
In light of the judgments, the Division Bench of the instant case held that the Circular of 1992 was not an exhaustive list and that the practice in District Judiciary has been such that certain office subordinates are attached with the residences of Judicial Officers for domestic work.
Thus, the Court found no merit in the petition and accordingly dismissed it.
Case Details:
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO:14017 of 2024
Case Title: AP Judicial Office Sub Ordinates Association v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others