Andhra Pradesh High Court upholds assignment of district court staff to Judges’ residence for domestic duties

The Andhra Pradesh High Court on July 9 dismissed a plea challenging the practice of assigning office subordinates of District Courts to perform domestic duties at the residences of Judicial Officers, holding that such duties do not violate service norms. [AP Judicial Office Subordinates Association vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.].A Division Bench of Justice R Raghunandan Rao and Justice Sumathi Jagadam held that such practice does not violate service norms. The 1992 administrative circular issued by the High Court does not list out an exhaustive list of duties and office subordinates may be lawfully assigned for other functions, including domestic work, as per prevailing practices in the district judiciary, the Court said..The petitioner, AP Judicial Office Subordinates Association, moved the Court contending that the 1992 circular issued by the Registrar (Administration) did not include domestic duties within the scope of work for office subordinates. It argued that staff members were being deputed to Judges’ residences and made 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..In response, the Registrar (Administration) and Registrar (Recruitment) of the High Court contended that the petition was not maintainable on the ground that the Association was unrecognised and had no authority to represent its claimed members. On merits, they relied on two prior judgments of 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), to argue that similar claims had been rejected in the past..The bench took note of these decisions and held that the 1992 circular does not prevent the assignment of domestic duties to office subordinates and that such assignments have historically been 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 said..The Court also addressed the petitioner’s argument regarding specific instances of misconduct and extended working hours. It observed that individual grievances about 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..[Read Order]