<p>Prayagraj (UP): Deciding a dispute regarding the appointment of an anganwadi worker, the Allahabad High Court has observed that a sister-in-law living separately will not fall within the ambit of family.</p>.<p>"A sister-in-law can be considered to be a member of the family provided both brothers are living together having a common kitchen and house," the court said.</p>.<p>With the above observation, Justice Ajit Kumar quashed a June 13 order issued by the district programme officer of Bareilly that had cancelled the petitioner's appointment as an anganwadi worker on the ground that her sister-in-law was also working as the anganwadi assistant in the same block and the government order in this regard does not allow the posting of two women from a family at the same centre.</p>.'Matter of serious concern': Allahabad HC flags safety risks in women training with male gym instructors.<p>It was argued in the court that the petitioner's sister-in-law ("jethani") was living in a separate house and hence, did not fall within the definition of "family" of the petitioner's husband.</p>.<p>The petitioner's counsel had produced relevant documents from the family register, which showed that the petitioner's husband was living in house number 126, whereas her sister-in-law, Ramwati, the wife of Prempal, was living in house number 107.</p>.<p>The petitioner's counsel had submitted that by no stretch of imagination, the sister-in-law could be taken to be falling within the definition of family for the purposes of selection and appointment on the post of anganwadi worker.</p>.<p>After going through the entire record and submissions of parties, the court allowed the petition.</p>.<p>"Writ petition accordingly succeeds and is allowed. The order impugned dated June 13, 2025 is hereby quashed. The district programme officer is directed to reinstate the petitioner as an anganwadi worker to discharge her duties and she shall also be paid salary month by month. As a result of 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 the order impugned," the court said. </p>
<p>Prayagraj (UP): Deciding a dispute regarding the appointment of an anganwadi worker, the Allahabad High Court has observed that a sister-in-law living separately will not fall within the ambit of family.</p>.<p>"A sister-in-law can be considered to be a member of the family provided both brothers are living together having a common kitchen and house," the court said.</p>.<p>With the above observation, Justice Ajit Kumar quashed a June 13 order issued by the district programme officer of Bareilly that had cancelled the petitioner's appointment as an anganwadi worker on the ground that her sister-in-law was also working as the anganwadi assistant in the same block and the government order in this regard does not allow the posting of two women from a family at the same centre.</p>.'Matter of serious concern': Allahabad HC flags safety risks in women training with male gym instructors.<p>It was argued in the court that the petitioner's sister-in-law ("jethani") was living in a separate house and hence, did not fall within the definition of "family" of the petitioner's husband.</p>.<p>The petitioner's counsel had produced relevant documents from the family register, which showed that the petitioner's husband was living in house number 126, whereas her sister-in-law, Ramwati, the wife of Prempal, was living in house number 107.</p>.<p>The petitioner's counsel had submitted that by no stretch of imagination, the sister-in-law could be taken to be falling within the definition of family for the purposes of selection and appointment on the post of anganwadi worker.</p>.<p>After going through the entire record and submissions of parties, the court allowed the petition.</p>.<p>"Writ petition accordingly succeeds and is allowed. The order impugned dated June 13, 2025 is hereby quashed. The district programme officer is directed to reinstate the petitioner as an anganwadi worker to discharge her duties and she shall also be paid salary month by month. As a result of 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 the order impugned," the court said. </p>