The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently upheld the legality of assigning domestic duties to office subordinates working under the District Judiciary at the residences or quarters of judicial officers. In a significant verdict delivered on 9th July 2025, a Division Bench comprising Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice Sumathi Jagadam dismissed a writ petition filed by the AP Judicial Office Subordinates Association, marking a continuation of judicial precedent on the matter.
The Petition and Its Grounds
The petitioner, a non-recognized association claiming to represent office subordinates in the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Services, filed W.P. No. 14017 of 2024 alleging that:
- Office subordinates were being compelled to perform domestic work at the residences of judges.
- These duties extended beyond regular working hours, often without formal leave or proper compensation.
- Harassment and exploitation were reported in several instances.
- Such assignments, the petitioner argued, were not included in the 1992 Circular issued by the Registrar (Administration) of the then unified Andhra Pradesh High Court.
Read Also:- Andhra Pradesh High Court Clarifies: 'Ganja' Seeds and Leaves Not Banned Under NDPS Act
The petitioner further asserted that the 1992 Circular did not include domestic services and sought a judicial directive prohibiting such practice.
The Respondent’s Stand
The respondents—State of Andhra Pradesh and Registrars of the High Court—argued that:
- The 1992 Circular is not exhaustive regarding duties assigned to office subordinates.
- Earlier court decisions had already interpreted this Circular in favor of allowing domestic duty assignments.
- The petitioner association is unrecognized, and therefore, lacked legal standing to represent others.
They relied particularly on two Division Bench judgments:
- T.M. Manikumar v. Second Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur (2002 (2) ALD 428)
- T.M. Mani Kumar v. Registrar (Administration), High Court of A.P. (2005 (6) ALD 346 DB)
Court’s Analysis and Observation
The Court traced the issue back to the T.M. Mani Kumar cases, where similar contentions were raised. In both instances, the High Court had rejected the argument that domestic duties fell outside the scope of employment obligations of judicial office subordinates.
“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,”
— Justice R. Raghunandan Rao
The Court recognized the long-standing practice in District Judiciary where certain office subordinates are attached to judges' residences for domestic tasks. It noted that:
“In such circumstances, the claim... that domestic duties are not part of the duties of the office subordinates cannot be accepted.”
Read Also:- Police Must Stay Away from Land Disputes Disguised as Amicable Settlements: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Regarding allegations of harassment or being made to work outside office hours:
“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... can be changed.”
After examining all arguments, the High Court concluded that there was no merit in the writ petition. The Bench dismissed the plea, affirming that:
“Domestic duties may be lawfully assigned to office subordinates attached to judges’ quarters, and the 1992 Circular does not limit or prohibit such practice.”
No costs were awarded. The Court also directed that pending miscellaneous applications be closed.
Case Title: AP Judicial Office Subordinates Association vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others