The Allahabad High Court allowed a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution wherein the petitioner prayed to quash an order dated 13.6.2025 passed by District Programme Officer, Bareilly which cancelled the appointment of the petitioner as Anganbari Worker chiefly on the ground that petitioner’s sister- in-law (jethani) was also working as Anganbari Assistant in the same block and that it was against the Government Order which did not permit the posting of two women of the same family as Anganbari Worker and Anganbari Assistant. However, Justice Ajit Kumar quashed the District Programme Officer’s order and directed reinstatement with consequential benefits.
The petitioner contended that her sister-in-law (jethani) was living in a separate house having separate house number and hence did not fall within the definition of family of the husband of the petitioner. In support of this submission, it was argued that petitioner’s husband was living in house no. 126 whereas petitioner’s sister-in-law and brother-in-law were living in separate house being no. 107. Reference was made to the definition clause of family provided for government employee in the medical department as well as the definition of family given under Order XXXII-A, Rule 6 CPC to support the argument that sister-in-law would not fall within the definition of family. Reliance was also placed on the family register which showed the separate residences.
The Court observed that Ld. Standing Counsel, though sought to defend the order, could not dispute that the order was passed without giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, nor could dispute that relevant clause of the Government Order only includes two women of the same family. Relying on the judgment in Smt. Kusum Lata v. State of U.P. and 2 Others, Writ C No. 21935 of 2021, the Court noted various definitions of family under different service rules and government orders.
It was held by the Court that from the discussion made with reference to various service rules and the definition of family given in CPC, it could easily be concluded that daughter-in-law (jethani) would not become member of the family and can be considered to be a member of family provided both brothers are living together having common kitchen and house. The Court concluded that it cannot be said that both sister-in-law (jethani) and petitioner were women of the same family, and hence the order impugned was rendered unsustainable on both grounds of violation of principles of natural justice and also on merits.
Accordingly, the Court directed the District Programme Officer to reinstate the petitioner as Anganbari Worker to discharge her duties and pay salary month by month. The Court also held that as a result of the order being quashed, the petitioner shall be entitled to consequential benefits in terms of arrears of salary for the period she had been denied on account of the impugned order.
Appearances:
Petitioner: Anil Kumar Prajapati, Kuldeep Kumar Mishra
Respondent: C.S.C.
