In a ruling that blends tradition with administration, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the controversial practice of assigning court subordinates to domestic duties at the homes of judges, brushing aside objections that such work falls outside official job descriptions.
The judgment came in response to a plea by the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Office Subordinates Association, which had raised a red flag over the long-standing tradition. Their grievance? Court staff, especially office subordinates, were allegedly being deputed to judicial residences, made to work past regular hours, and denied proper leave—all under the guise of duty.
But the Court saw things differently.
A Division Bench led by Justices R Raghunandan Rao and Sumathi Jagadam ruled that these domestic tasks—though not spelled out explicitly in a 1992 High Court circular—are well within the boundaries of accepted responsibility. The bench made it clear: just because the circular doesn’t list every possible duty doesn’t mean others can’t be assigned. In their words, it’s not an “exhaustive list.”
The judges also leaned on precedent, invoking earlier decisions from the now-split Andhra Pradesh and Telangana High Court. Those rulings had similarly dismissed challenges to the domestic deputation of court staff, reinforcing the idea that tradition has administrative weight.
Responding to allegations of harassment and coercion, the Court noted that if any staffer has a specific grievance—whether it’s over extended hours or misconduct—they’re free to raise it via administrative channels. But these individual complaints, the bench insisted, can’t redefine what counts as a staff duty.
In essence, the verdict draws a firm line: systemic change must come from policy, not courtroom decrees. As things stand, dusting shelves and running errands in a judge’s home remain part of a court subordinate’s job—whether they like it or not.
