# Kumari Sonam v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 685
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-12
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 11406 of 2025
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kumari-sonam-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53749
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Whether the sister-in-law (jethani) came within
definition of 'family' of the petitioner for the
purposes of selection and appointment on the
post of Anganbari Worker and so whether bar
imposed under GO dated 21.05.2023 can be
enforced?

Headnotes
(A)
Service
law
-
Cancellation
of
appointment
-
Anganbari
Worker
-
Petitioner's sister-in-law (Jethani) was
also appointed as Anganbari Assistant -
No notice was given - Principle of natural
justice - Applicability - Bar was imposed
under GO dated 21.05.2023 that two
ladies of same family cannot be appointed
- Relevancy - Ground of living in separate
family was taken - Definition of family
also felt into consideration:
Held : Daughter-in-law (jethani) would not
become member of the family and daughter-inlaw (jethani) can be considered to be a member
of family provided both brothers are living
together having common kitchen and house - 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.
[Paras 12 and 13] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
Writ C No. 21935 of 2021, Smt. Kusum
Lata v. State of U.P. and 2 Others, decided
on 29.11.2021 - referred to.

List of Acts
Civil Procedure Code - O. XXXII-A, R. 6; The
Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of
Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules,

## Text

8 All. Kumari Sonam Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
685
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 685
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 11406 of 2025

Kumari Sonam ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Anil Kumar Prajapati, Kuldeep Kumar
Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
Whether the sister-in-law (jethani) came within
definition of 'family' of the petitioner for the
purposes of selection and appointment on the
post of Anganbari Worker and so whether bar
imposed under GO dated 21.05.2023 can be
enforced?

Headnotes
(A)
Service
law
-
Cancellation
of
appointment
-
Anganbari
Worker
-
Petitioner's sister-in-law (Jethani) was
also appointed as Anganbari Assistant -
No notice was given - Principle of natural
justice - Applicability - Bar was imposed
under GO dated 21.05.2023 that two
ladies of same family cannot be appointed
- Relevancy - Ground of living in separate
family was taken - Definition of family
also felt into consideration:
Held : Daughter-in-law (jethani) would not
become member of the family and daughter-inlaw (jethani) can be considered to be a member
of family provided both brothers are living
together having common kitchen and house - 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.
[Paras 12 and 13] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
Writ C No. 21935 of 2021, Smt. Kusum
Lata v. State of U.P. and 2 Others, decided
on 29.11.2021 - referred to.

List of Acts
Civil Procedure Code - O. XXXII-A, R. 6; The
Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of
Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules,
1974.

List of Keywords
Appointment; Anganbari Worker; Cancelation;
Jethani; Anganbari Assistant; Family; Notice;
Opportunity of hearing; Bar; Definition of family;
Separate house; Definition of family; Medical
assistant; Dying in harness Rule; Principle of
natural justice.

Case Arising From
Order dated 13.06.2025 cancelling appointment
of petitioner as Anganbari Worker.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1.Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2.By means of present petition filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution,
petitioner has prayed for quashing of the
order dated 13.6.2025 passed by District
Programme Officer, Bareilly cancelling 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 the Government Order
does not permit the posting of two women
of the same family at same centre as
Anganbari
Worker
and
Anganbari
Assistant.

3.Assailing
the
order
impugned,
learned counsel for the petitioner in the first
686 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
instance submitted that order impugned has
been without any notice and opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner. Since order has
adverse civil Consequences, petitioner
ought
to
have
been
afforded
her
explanation in defence of appointment
order. The legal aspect as to the bar created
under
the
Government
Order
dated
21.5.2023,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner submits that relevant Clause of
the said order vide Clause 12 (iv) only this
much provides that two ladies of the same
family will not be appointed as Anganbari
Worker and Anganbari Assistant at the
same center. The relevant provisions as
reproduced hereunder:

" एक आंगनबाड़ी केन्र पर एक ही पररवार की दो
मलहलाओं की लनयुलक्त आंगनबाड़ी कायटकत्री व सहालयका के पद पर
नहीं की जीयेगी । "

4.It is argued that petitioner's sister-inlaw (jethani) is living in a separate house
having separate house number and hence
she also does not fall within the definition
of family of the husband of the petitioner
may be she belongs to the family of her
father-in-law, and therefore, within the
definition of family, sister-in-law will not
fall.

5.In support of this above submission,
firstly, learned counsel for the petitioner
has taken the Court the relevant document
of family register which shows that
petitioner's husband is living in house no.
126 whereas
petitioner's
sister-in-law,
namely, Ramwati, W/o Prempal, brotherin-law, of the petitioner is living in separate
house being no. 107.

6.Learned counsel for the petitioner has
further taken the Court to the definition
clause of family provided for government
employee in the medical department for the
purpose of medical assistance to dependents
of the family in government department
which provides for husband, wife, parents,
step son, unmarried/ divorce /deserted sisters,
minor, brother and step mother.

7.In respect of other support has been
taken from the definition of family given
under Order XXXII-A, Rule 6 that provides
for definition of family consisting of man and
his wife living with child or children being
issue of heirs or of such man and such wife
any child or children maintained being man
and wife. Relevant provisions of CPC ,Rule 6
of CPC is reproduced hereunder:

"6. "Family"-Meaning of

For the purposes of this order,
each of the following shall be treated as
constituting a family, namely-

(a) (i) a man and his wife living
together,

(ii) any child or children, being
issue of theirs; or of such man or such wife,

(iii) any child or children being
maintained by such man and wife;

(b) a man not having a wife or not
living together with his wife, any child or
children, being issue of his, and any child or
children being maintained by him;

(c) a woman not having a husband
or not living together with her husband, any
child or children being issue of her,sand any
child or children being maintained by here;

(d) a man or woman and his or
her brother, sister, ancestor or lineal
descendant living with him or her; and
8 All. Kumari Sonam Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
687

(e) any combination of one or
more of the groups specified in clause (a),
clause (b), clause (c) or clause (d) of this
rule.

Explanation: For the avoidance
of doubts, it is hereby declared that the
provisions of rule 6 shall be without any
prejudiced tot he concept of "family"in any
personal law or in any other law for the
time being in force."

8.Learned counsel for the petitioner in
support of his argument has relied upon the
judgment of coordinate bench of this Court
in the case of Smt. Kusum Lata v. State
of U.P. and 2 Others, Writ C No. 21935
of 2021, decided on 29.11.2021, in which
the Court dealt with definition providing
under the relevant cadre order of the year
2016 providing for allotment of fair price
shop. Rule framed under the The Uttar
Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of
Government Servants Dying in Harness
Rules,
1974
were
also
taken
into
consideration. Relevant paragraph 21 and
22 of the judgment of Coordinate bench is
reproduced hereunder:

"21. Pursuant to the Control
Order of 2016 the State Government issued
a Government Order dated 05.08.2019 in
regard to the allotment of license of vacant
fair price shop and the reservation
applicable therein. Sub-clause (10) of
Clause IV provides that the definition of
family as occurring in the Control Order of
2016 will also apply in case of the
allotment of license of vacant shop which is
as under;

"ग्राम प्रिान के पररवार के सदस्यों के पक्ष में उकचत
दर की दुकान के आवंटन का प्रस्ताव नहीं ककया जायेगा। पररवार की
पररभािा, जैसा कक उ 0 प्र आवश्यक वास्तु (कवतरण के कवकनयमन
का कनयंत्रण ) आदेश 2016 में दी गई है, कनम्नानुसार होगी :-

- पररवार का मुकखया,

- पकत/पत्नी कवकिक रुप से अपनाये गये दत्तक संतान
सकहत ।

- संतान जो पररवार के मुकखया पर पूणज रुप से
आकश्रत हो ।

- अकववाकहत, कवकिक रुप से पृथक और कविवा
बेटी, और

- पररवार के मुकखया पर पूणज रुप से आकश्रत माता
/कपता"

22. The definition of family
occurring in the Control Order of 2016 is
not para materia to the definition of family
occurring in Rule 2 (c) of the Dying-inHarness Rules, which is extracted here as
under;

"2(c) "family" shall include the
following
relations
of
the
deceased
Government servant:

(i) Wife or husband;

(ii) Sons/adopted sons;

(iii)
Unmarried
daughters,
unmarried adopted daughters, widowed
daughters and widowed daughters-inlaw;

(iv)
Unmarried
brothers,
unmarried sisters and widowed mother
dependent on the deceased Government
servant, if the deceased Government
servant was unmarried;

(v) aforementioned relations of
such missing Government servant who has
been declared as "dead" by the competent
Court;
688 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Provided
that
if
a
person
belonging to any of the above mentioned
relations of the deceased Government
servant is not available or is found to be
physically and mentally unfit and thus
ineligible for employment in Government
service, then only in such situation the
word "family" shall also include the
grandsons
and
the
unmarried
granddaughters
of
the
deceased
Government servant dependent on him."

9.After discussion, vide paragraph 36,
the Court held thus:

36. More so, the Control Order of
2016 does not make any distinction
between the sons and daughters of a license
holder, as in case of Rule 2 (c) of the
Dying-in-Harness Rules. The definition of
family occurring in the Control Order of
2016 as well as the government order of
2019 embraces the word "dependant
child", which also includes the dependant
father and mother. Argument that married
daughter had been excluded creates gender
bias cannot be accepted, as the very
purpose is the distribution of food grains to
the card holders attached to the ration shop
situated in village. Once the daughter of a
licensee is married outside the village, she
cannot continue to run the fair price shop
and distribute ration. The sole purpose of
enacting the Act of 2013 and the Control
Order of 2016 is that the food reaches the
last person of the society and a licensee
being only an agent of the State through
which the target is achieved by both the
Central
Government
and
the
State
Government.

10.Thus, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that by no stretch of
imagination the sister-in-law (jethani) can
be taken to be falling within the
definition of family for the purposes of
selection and appointment on the post of
Anganbari Worker.

11.Learned Standing Counsel though
sought to defend the order, but could not
dispute that 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.

12.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 daughterin-law
(jethani)
would
not
become
member of the family and daughter-inlaw (jethani) can be considered to be a
member of family provided both brothers
are living together having common
kitchen and house.

13.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.

14.Writ
petition
accordingly
succeeds and is allowed. The order
impugned dated 13.6.2025 is hereby
quashed. 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.
8 All. Shiv Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
689
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 689
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 12839 of 2023

Shiv Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Neelam Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Gaurav Bishan

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether
the
petitioner's
compassionate
appointment could be terminated after 14 years
on the ground that he failed to disclose in his
application the material fact that his mother was
employed in government service, despite the
petitioner's mother having submitted a notarized
affidavit disclosing that she was working as an
Assistant Teacher and the respondents having
verified
all
documents
at
the
time
of
appointment.

HEADNOTE
Service Law - Compassionate Appointment -
Alleged Concealment - Mother employed in
Government service - No prescribed application
format - No misrepresentation - Duty of authority
to verify - Long delay of 14 years - Termination
arbitrary - Reinstatement directed.
Held :
Petitioner applied for compassionate appointment
upon the death of his father in harness. In the
year 2000, when the petitioner submitted his
application, no prescribed format existed requiring
disclosure of any specific information. Petitioner
submitted all necessary documents, including a
notarized affidavit dated from his mother
expressly stating that she was working as an
Assistant
Teacher.
After
due
enquiry
and
verification of all records, the petitioner was
appointed as Junior Clerk on 12.07.2001.
Held : Non-disclosure of a fact not required under
law does not constitute fraud or forgery. Fraud
requires
intentional
concealment
or
misrepresentation of a material fact that the law
obligates the applicant to disclose, and such
misrepresentation must induce the authority to act
to its detriment. Mere silence does not amount to
fraud unless there exists a legal duty to disclose.
There was no misrepresentation or concealment
by
the
petitioner
regarding
his
mother's
employment.
The
notarized
affidavit
dated
28.07.2000 clearly disclosed her employment
status, and the authorities had verified all
documents before making the appointment. At the
age of 181⁄2, amid the family's distress after the
sudden death of the breadwinner, the petitioner
could not be expected to understand technical
disclosure requirements; the burden of verification
lay with the authorities. Allegations of fraud cannot
be presumed and must be proved by cogent
evidence. Respondents failed to act against the
officials responsible for verification, yet sought to
penalise the petitioner after 14 years. Once an
appointment is made after due scrutiny, it carries a
presumption of validity and cannot be cancelled on
mere presumptions. The petitioner's appointment
was neither illegal nor irregular.
Termination order held unsustainable. Writ
petition allowed; order quashed; reinstatement
with all consequential benefits directed. (Paras
34, 41-55) (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
1. Smt. Sugandha Upadhyay v. State of U.P.,
Writ-A No. 4597/2024;
2. State of U.P. v. Smt. Sugandha Upadhyay,
Special Appeal No. 5/2025;
3. State of U.P. v. Sugandha Upadhyay, SLP (C)
No. 6320/2025 (dismissed);
4. Uday Pratap Singh v. DBEO Basti, Writ-A No.
2134/2023;
5. Basic Shiksha Adhikari And another v. Uday
Pratap Singh, Special Appeal Defective No.
870/2023;
6. Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.7348 of
2024 (Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District Basti &
Anr vs. Uday Pratap Singh & Anr.);
7. Vishwaroop v. State of U.P., Writ-A No.
2058/2024;