Allahabad High Court

2. Heard Sri Nikhil Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, who appears for State-respondents.

3. Instructions have been supplied by Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Chief learned Standing Counsel, submits that he is well equipped with the instructions and the instructions are self-sufficient for disposal of the writ petition and he does not propose to file any further affidavit and the petition be decided on the basis of the documents available on record, thus with the consent of the parties, writ petition is being decided at the fresh stage.

4. The case of the writ petitioner is that she was engaged as an Anganwadi worker for the period from 02.12.2002. However, the writ petitioner in order to excel in her service for an academic career, she was appointed as a Member (Female) Child Welfare Committee and she discharged her obligations and responsibility from 22.11.2010 to 14.11.2014, and again was appointed as a Member (Female) Juvenile Justice Board from 24.05.2022 to

31.05.2024. A complaint came to be filed by one Shri S.K. Mishra, Advocate, against the writ petitioner alleging that the writ petitioner was, on one hand, being an Anganwadi worker and, on the other, during the said engagement, working as a Member (Female) Welfare Child Committee and Member (Female) Juvenile Justice Board. Noticing the said complaint, an order came to be passed on 12.09.2025 by the In-charge Child Development 2 WRIA No. 17715 of 2025 Project Officer, Maitha, Kanpur Dehat, followed by another order by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat, seeking to recover of an amount of Rs. 5,26,172/- and for dispensation of the services of the writ petitioner.

5. Questioning both the orders, the present writ petition has been preferred.

6. This Court entertained the writ petition on 25.11.2025 while passing the following orders: "1. On a pointed query being raised to learned counsel for the writ petitioner as to what are the terms of the engagement which throws light upon the contingency whether the writ petitioner as an Aganbari Karyakarti can have employment of work in other department or not. To such a submission, learned counsel for the writ petitioner seeks time. In the meantime, learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions.

2. Put up this case as fresh on 16.12.2025."

7. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the engagement of the petitioner on the post as Anganwadi worker was contractual and while inviting attention towards the terms and conditions of the engagement, it is contended that the remuneration which was to be paid was Rs. 500 per month and further the provisions and rules applicable to U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 and Service Rules are not applicable. He further has invited attention towards the Government Order dated 21.03.2023, Clause 13, so as to contend that none of the conditions applied for dispensation of the services, as there was no bar in engagement as a Member (Female) either in Juvenile Justice Board or in Child Welfare Committee. He further submits that the impugned orders have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice without issuing show cause notice.

8. Shri Pramod Kumar Shrivastav, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel based upon the instructions, has submitted that three consecutive notices have been issued dated 23.08.2024, 15.10.2024 and 9.11.2024 but the writ petitioner did not tender his reply, and furthermore, whatever might be, it is a clear-cut case of concealment and non-disclosure about the other assignments during the period of engagement as Anganwadi worker. He submits that it is not permissible that the writ petitioner is to enjoy remuneration from two different places at the same time. He further submits that the conditions mentioned in the appointment order that the service rules of the U.P. Government Servant is not applicable does not denote that the 3 WRIA No. 17715 of 2025 petitioner is free to engage himself in other employment, as the only purpose for incorporation of the said condition was that the writ petitioner may not claim the status of a regular government employee. He also submits that even the loss has been sustained from the State exchequer.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.

10. Facts are not in issue. It is not in issue that the writ petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi worker. It is also not in dispute for certain span of period, the writ petitioner was worked as a Member (Female) Child Welfare Committee and Member (Female) Juvenile Justice Board. Though in the instructions, it has been referred that notices came to be issued on

23.08.2024, 15.10.2024 and 9.11.2024 but in the order impugned, there is no recital about the issuance of the show cause notice and the service of the same and the fact that the writ petitioner, despite service, did not submit his reply. Since recovery is being sought to be made and the services of the petitioner are being dispensed with, thus it would be in violation of the principles of natural justice, and the issuance of notice cannot be said to be empty formality, until and unless it is served upon the incumbent and a finding is recorded in the order impugned that despite service, the writ petitioner did not tender his reply. Thus, the order impugned cannot be sustained.

11. Accordingly, the writ petition is being decided in the following manner: (a) The order dated 12.09.2025 issued by the Respondent No. 4, and

29.07.2025 issued by the Respondent No. 2 to Respondent No. 3 are set aside. (b) Since today, instructions have been served upon the counsel for the petitioner, Shri Nikhil Kumar Yadav, containing the three show cause notices dated 23.08.2024, 15.10.2024 and 9.11.2024 thus it would be deemed that the writ petitioner has service and knowledge about the said notice. (c) The writ petitioner shall tender his reply to the said notices by 31st, December 2025, and thereafter, the orders shall be passed by 23rd, January

2026. 4 WRIA No. 17715 of 2025

12. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. December 16, 2025 A. Prajapati (Vikas Budhwar,J.)

2. Heard Sri Nikhil Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, who appears for State-respondents.

3. Instructions have been supplied by Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Chief learned Standing Counsel, submits that he is well equipped with the instructions and the instructions are self-sufficient for disposal of the writ petition and he does not propose to file any further affidavit and the petition be decided on the basis of the documents available on record, thus with the consent of the parties, writ petition is being decided at the fresh stage.

4. The case of the writ petitioner is that she was engaged as an Anganwadi worker for the period from 02.12.2002. However, the writ petitioner in order to excel in her service for an academic career, she was appointed as a Member (Female) Child Welfare Committee and she discharged her obligations and responsibility from 22.11.2010 to 14.11.2014, and again was appointed as a Member (Female) Juvenile Justice Board from 24.05.2022 to

31.05.2024. A complaint came to be filed by one Shri S.K. Mishra, Advocate, against the writ petitioner alleging that the writ petitioner was, on one hand, being an Anganwadi worker and, on the other, during the said engagement, working as a Member (Female) Welfare Child Committee and Member (Female) Juvenile Justice Board. Noticing the said complaint, an order came to be passed on 12.09.2025 by the In-charge Child Development 2 WRIA No. 17715 of 2025 Project Officer, Maitha, Kanpur Dehat, followed by another order by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat, seeking to recover of an amount of Rs. 5,26,172/- and for dispensation of the services of the writ petitioner.

5. Questioning both the orders, the present writ petition has been preferred.

6. This Court entertained the writ petition on 25.11.2025 while passing the following orders: "1. On a pointed query being raised to learned counsel for the writ petitioner as to what are the terms of the engagement which throws light upon the contingency whether the writ petitioner as an Aganbari Karyakarti can have employment of work in other department or not. To such a submission, learned counsel for the writ petitioner seeks time. In the meantime, learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions.

2. Put up this case as fresh on 16.12.2025."

7. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the engagement of the petitioner on the post as Anganwadi worker was contractual and while inviting attention towards the terms and conditions of the engagement, it is contended that the remuneration which was to be paid was Rs. 500 per month and further the provisions and rules applicable to U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 and Service Rules are not applicable. He further has invited attention towards the Government Order dated 21.03.2023, Clause 13, so as to contend that none of the conditions applied for dispensation of the services, as there was no bar in engagement as a Member (Female) either in Juvenile Justice Board or in Child Welfare Committee. He further submits that the impugned orders have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice without issuing show cause notice.

8. Shri Pramod Kumar Shrivastav, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel based upon the instructions, has submitted that three consecutive notices have been issued dated 23.08.2024, 15.10.2024 and 9.11.2024 but the writ petitioner did not tender his reply, and furthermore, whatever might be, it is a clear-cut case of concealment and non-disclosure about the other assignments during the period of engagement as Anganwadi worker. He submits that it is not permissible that the writ petitioner is to enjoy remuneration from two different places at the same time. He further submits that the conditions mentioned in the appointment order that the service rules of the U.P. Government Servant is not applicable does not denote that the 3 WRIA No. 17715 of 2025 petitioner is free to engage himself in other employment, as the only purpose for incorporation of the said condition was that the writ petitioner may not claim the status of a regular government employee. He also submits that even the loss has been sustained from the State exchequer.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.

10. Facts are not in issue. It is not in issue that the writ petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi worker. It is also not in dispute for certain span of period, the writ petitioner was worked as a Member (Female) Child Welfare Committee and Member (Female) Juvenile Justice Board. Though in the instructions, it has been referred that notices came to be issued on

23.08.2024, 15.10.2024 and 9.11.2024 but in the order impugned, there is no recital about the issuance of the show cause notice and the service of the same and the fact that the writ petitioner, despite service, did not submit his reply. Since recovery is being sought to be made and the services of the petitioner are being dispensed with, thus it would be in violation of the principles of natural justice, and the issuance of notice cannot be said to be empty formality, until and unless it is served upon the incumbent and a finding is recorded in the order impugned that despite service, the writ petitioner did not tender his reply. Thus, the order impugned cannot be sustained.

11. Accordingly, the writ petition is being decided in the following manner: (a) The order dated 12.09.2025 issued by the Respondent No. 4, and

29.07.2025 issued by the Respondent No. 2 to Respondent No. 3 are set aside. (b) Since today, instructions have been served upon the counsel for the petitioner, Shri Nikhil Kumar Yadav, containing the three show cause notices dated 23.08.2024, 15.10.2024 and 9.11.2024 thus it would be deemed that the writ petitioner has service and knowledge about the said notice. (c) The writ petitioner shall tender his reply to the said notices by 31st, December 2025, and thereafter, the orders shall be passed by 23rd, January

2026. 4 WRIA No. 17715 of 2025

12. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. December 16, 2025 A. Prajapati (Vikas Budhwar,J.)