Justice Ajit Kumar, Allahabad High Court
Sister-In-Law Can Be Considered Family Member If Brothers Have Common Kitchen: Allahabad High Court Directs Reinstatement Of Anganbari Worker
|The Allahabad High Court was considering a petition seeking the quashing of the order of the District Programme Officer, Bareilly cancelling the appointment of the petitioner as an Anganbari Worker.
The Allahabad High Court has directed the reinstatement of an Anganbari Worker whose appointment was cancelled on the ground that her sister-in-law (jethani) was also working as Anganbari Assistant in the same block. The High Court held that the sister-in-law can be considered to be a member of a family provided both brothers are living together having a common kitchen and house.
The High Court was considering a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the order of the District Programme Officer, Bareilly cancelling the appointment of the petitioner as Anganbari Worker chiefly on the ground that the petitioner's sister-in-law (jethani) was also working as Anganbari Assistant in the same block and the Government Order did not permit the posting of two women of the same family at same centre as Anganbari Worker and Anganbari Assistant.
The Single Bench of Justice Ajit Kumar held, “From the discussion made above with reference to various service rules and the definition of family given in CPC , it can easily be concluded that daughter-in-law (jethani) would not become member of the family and daughter-in-law (jethani) can be considered to be a member of family provided both brothers are living together having common kitchen and house. In view of above, therefore, it cannot be said that both sister-in-law (jethani) and petitioner were women of the same family, and hence, order impugned is rendered unsustainable on both grounds of violation of principles of natural justice and also on merits.”
Anil Kumar Prajapati represented the Petitioner, while Chief Standing Counsel represented the Respondent.
Arguments
It was the petitioner’s case that by no stretch of imagination, the sister-in-law (jethani) could be taken to be falling within the definition of family for the purposes of selection and appointment to the post of Anganbari Worker. It was further argued that the petitioner's sister-in-law has been living in a separate house having a separate house number, and hence she did not fall within the definition of the family of the husband of the petitioner.
Reasoning
The Bench held that the sister-in-law (jethani) can be considered to be a member of the family, provided both brothers are living together, having a common kitchen and house. Noting that the petitioner and her sister-in-law were not women of the same family, the Bench quashed the impugned order.
Allowing the Writ petition, the Bench ordered, “The District Programme Officer is directed to reinstate the petitioner as Anganbari Worker to discharge her duties and shall also be paid salary month by month. As a result the order being quashed, the petitioner shall also be entitled to consequential benefits in terms of arrears of salary for the period she has been denied on account of order impugned.”
Cause Title: Kumari Sonam v. State Of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:137725)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocates Anil Kumar Prajapati, Kuldeep Kumar Mishra
Respondent: Chief Standing Counsel