# Anurag Chand v. Director of Education (Basic) and others - **Citation:** (2004) 2 ILRA 559 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2001-05-30 - **Case number:** Writ Petition No.36043 of 1998 - **Bench:** Tarun Agarwala - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anurag-chand-v-director-of-education-basic-and-others-40245 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Income Tax Act, 1961-Ss. 269-Ss., 276DE, 278B and 276-DD-Criminal prosecution for violation of S. 269-SS punishable under S. 276 DE read with S. 278B-Held, there can be no prosecution for a breach of S. 269 SS, if prosecussion has been launched after deletion of S. 276 DD even if loan amounts were taken by cash prior to that date i.e. 1.4.1989Secondly, liability under S. 278 B would only arise provided any offence has been committed-If there is no commission of offence, no question of complaint against Managing Director arises. Held: Para 2 There can be no prosecution for a breach of Section 269-SS, if the prosecution has been launched after deletion of Section ## Text http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 2 All] Anurag Chand V. Director of Education (Basic) and others 559 and others, 1994(68) FLR 283, this Court held that there was no difference between a real son and an adopted son and that an adopted son was entitled to all the benefits which a real son gets and was, therefore, entitled for an appointment under the Dying-in-Harness, Rules, 1974. 5. In view of the aforesaid decisions, the order dated 14.5.2001, passed by the State Government as well as the order dated 30.5.2001, passed by the District Magistrate are quashed and the writ petition is allowed. A mandamus is issued to the respondent no.2 to consider the claim of the petitioner and, if it is found that he is an adopted son of the deceased, he should be given necessary appointment within four weeks from the date a certified copy of this judgment is produced before me. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.08.2004 BEFORE THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J. Writ Petition No.36043 of 1998 Anurag Chand ...Petitioner Versus Director of Education (Basic)/Chairman, Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P., Allahabad and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P.C. Singh Sri G.S. Singh Sri Dinesh Rai Counsel for the Respondents: Sri B.P. Singh S.C. U.P. Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974-Family-Meaning of-whether step son is covered by definition of family and is entitled to appointment under Rule?-held 'yes'. Held: Para 5 In my view, a stepson would be covered under the definition of word 'family' and would be entitled for appointment. Case law discussed: 2001 (3) ESC (All) 1283 2004 (1) ESC (All) 180 (Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.) 1. The petitioner's step mother, Smt. Geeta Kushwaha died in harness on 28.8.1997. As a step son, the petitioner applied for his appointment under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. The application of the petitioner was also accompanied by a succession certificate issued by the Tehsildar. Subsequently, the respondents issued an appointment letter dated 4.5.1998 appointing the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher in Prathmic Vidyalaya Phulwariya, Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi. On the basis of the aforesaid appointment letter, the petitioner joined the school as an Assistant Teacher and worked till 3.6.98, on which date respondent No.2, namely, District Basic Education Officer, Varanasi cancelled the appointment order dated 2.5.1998 by the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner is not a uterine son of the deceased and was, therefore, not entitled for appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. The impugned order dated 3.6.1998 has been assailed in the present writ petition. 2. Heard Sri Dinesh Rai, the learned http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004 560 counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Under the Rules of 1974, family has been defined as under. "(c) "family" shall include the following relations of the deceased Government servant: (i) Wife or husband: (ii) Sons; (iii) Unmarried and widowed daughters; 3. From a perusal of the aforesaid rules it is clear that son is included in the definition of word "family". The question that arises for consideration is, whether a uterine son could only be included in the definition clause of "family" or whether a step son could also be included. 4. In my view, the word "family" has to be liberally construed. In Smt. Kusum Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2001 (3) E.S.C. (All.) 1283, it was held that a divorced daughter of the deceased would be covered under the definition of family and would be entitled to an appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules 1974. In Smt. Urmila Devi Vs. U.P. Power Corporation, Lucknow and others, 2004(1) E.S.C.(All.) 180, it was held that a daughter-in-law of the deceased son would be also covered under the definition of family and would be entitled for appointment. 5. In my view, a stepson would be covered under the definition of word 'family' and would be entitled for appointment. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 3.6.98 passed by the respondent No.2 (filed as Annexure No.7) is quashed. The petitioner would be entitled to continue in service as a legal heir of the deceased. Petition Allowed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.7.2004 BEFORE THE HON'BLE AMAR SARAN, J. Criminal Misc. Application No. 9993 of 1990 M/s Neera Chemicals P. Ltd. and another ...Applicants Versus Union of India ...Respondents Counsel for the Applicants: Sri Raghuraj Kishore Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Ashok Kumar Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal S.C. Income Tax Act, 1961-Ss. 269-Ss., 276DE, 278B and 276-DD-Criminal prosecution for violation of S. 269-SS punishable under S. 276 DE read with S. 278B-Held, there can be no prosecution for a breach of S. 269 SS, if prosecussion has been launched after deletion of S. 276 DD even if loan amounts were taken by cash prior to that date i.e. 1.4.1989Secondly, liability under S. 278 B would only arise provided any offence has been committed-If there is no commission of offence, no question of complaint against Managing Director arises. Held: Para 2 There can be no prosecution for a breach of Section 269-SS, if the prosecution has been launched after deletion of Section