Recently, the Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the alleged practice of compelling Class IV employees in district courts to perform personal tasks for judicial officers. The Court held that the petition, filed by an association on behalf of its members, was not maintainable as individual employees could approach the court for their grievances. It was observed that the association lacked the authority to initiate legal proceedings under its by-laws.
The petition was filed by Anjuman Himayat Chapansian Sangh, U.P. (Nyay Bhibhag), an association representing Class IV employees working in civil courts across Uttar Pradesh. The association claimed that judicial officers assigned domestic tasks to these employees beyond official working hours. Relying on the Uttar Pradesh District Court Service Rules, 2013, the petitioner sought a directive restraining judicial officers from engaging Class IV employees in personal work.
The counsel representing the High Court raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. Citing the Full Bench judgment in Umesh Chand Vinod Kumar & Ors. v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, it was argued that an association cannot file a writ petition for enforcing its members' rights unless certain conditions, such as members’ inability to approach the court individually due to economic or social disadvantages, were met. It was also contended that the association’s by-laws did not empower it to take legal action on behalf of its members, making the petition unsustainable. Further, it was asserted that judicial officers often required staff assistance beyond court premises for official duties, such as carrying files and facilitating the judicial process, which could not be equated with forced labour.
The Court noted that the petition failed to demonstrate why individual members could not file their grievances independently. Referring to the association’s by-laws, the court observed that while the organization was established to improve service conditions, it was not authorized to initiate litigation on behalf of its members. The court emphasised that legal proceedings initiated without proper authorization could not be entertained.
Additionally, when questioned whether judicial officers could be denied assistance for official work conducted at their residences, the petitioner failed to provide a satisfactory response. The Court also recognized that the transportation of judicial files by Class IV employees was a routine duty and did not constitute coercion or forced labour. In view of these findings, the court held that the writ petition was not maintainable and accordingly dismissed it.
Case No: Writ -A No. 1578 of 2025
Advocate for Petitioner: Anil Kumar Pandey
Advocate for Respondent: C.S.C., Gaurav Mehrotra
Picture Source :