AR. LAKSHMANAN, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition raises an important question as to he natures of duties to be performed by an attender working in the Subordinate Courts.

( 2 ) THE petitioner herein was appointed as attender on 13-6-1996 on compassionate grounds in place of his late father T. Prasadarao, Process Server in the District Court, Guntur who retired voluntarily on 31-5-1996 medical invalidation. The petitioner is now working as an attender in on the Court of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

( 3 ) THE petitioner filed the above writ petition aggrieved by the action of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge in exclusively allotting him daily duty at night at the residence of the II Addl. Junior Civil Judge inspite of the ill-health of the wife of the petitioner as an act of victimisation for having refused to work at the residence of the Judge during day time. According to the petitioner, his refusal to work at the residence of the Presiding Officer during day time was based on the circular issued to all the lower Courts on the administrative side by the High Court in ROC No. 116/92-C1, dated 24-2-1992 wherein it is stated that house work at the residence of the Presiding Officer is not among the eleven legitimate duties of a Court attender and, therefore, allotment of exclusively night duty to the petitioner at the residence of the Presiding Officer would amount to victimisation. Therefore, the petitioner claims that he has a legitimate cause of action for moving this Court in the matter.

( 4 ) IT appears that when the petitioner was working in the Court of the I Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Gurajala, filed a writ petition seeking an appropriate direction from this Court for posting him at Guntur town on the ground that his wife is a cardiac patient and medicare for her is not available at Gurajala. This Court directed the District and Sessions Judge, Guntur to consider his representation and as a consequence he was transferred to Guntur and posted at the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. He was allotted day duty at the residence of the Presiding Officer. According to the petitioner, the Court attenders can be asked to do only legitimate work at the residence of the Presiding Officer of the Court such as to guard the Court property at night. This was clarified by the High Court in circular dated 24-2-1992. It is the further case of the petitioner that as per the rules issued in G. O. Ms. No. 565 GAD (Ser. B), dated 24-10-1992, the list of legitimate duties does not include any day time work whatsoever at the residences of the Presiding Officers. His protest for being allotted day time work at the residence of the Presiding Officer was construed as an act of insubordination and disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against him. Subsequently, the petitioner was directed by the 1st respondent to do exclusively the guard duty at night at the residence of the officer as he objected to do the day duty at the residence of the officer. According to the petitioner, since the day duty at the residence of the officer is not a legitimate duty that can be demanded from a Court attender at all, the allotment of exclusive night duty at the residence of the officer would amount to an act of victimisation. The 1st respondent issued an office order dated 5-10-2001 stating that he was being allotted night duty exclusively for the reason that he was reluctant to attend any work at the residence of the Presiding Officer. On 16-10-2001 the petitioner made a representation that he may be allotted night duty and other work in the Court on alternate days. The other work includes delivery of tappals, maintaining order in the Court hall, carrying boxes and papers from one Court to another, encashing bills and cheques in the banks etc. The 1st respondent on 22-10-2001, however, rejected the request of the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner made a representation to the District Judge on 31-10-2001 but no reply the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document