Dismissed¶25

Mohd Mosin v. State of Up and 2 Others

Allahabad HC18 Mar 2026WRIA/3681/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compassionate appointment; dying-in-harness; stepson of deceased Assistant Teacher; U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974; Rule 2(c) definition of 'family'; delay of about 28 years in applying; family pension of Rs. 82,368/- already distributed; inconsistent family-member certificates; non-disclosure of earlier writ petitions; writ petition dismissed. WRIT - A No. 3681 of 2026, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, decided March 18, 2026, by Manju Rani Chauhan, J.

What did the court decide?

Having considered the submissions of counsel and perused the record, the Court found that the petitioner failed to make out any case in his favour; the writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed, with no order as to costs. ¶24

Mohd Mosin vs State of Up and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent nos. 2 and 3 should be directed to appoint the petitioner (stepson of Assistant Teacher Noor Jahan Begum, who died in harness on 06.08.1998) on compassionate ground as Assistant Teacher under the Rules, 1974, or to decide his pending application dated 17.02.2026. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The record revealed that the petitioner's application dated 05.01.2026 mentioned details of some earlier writ petitions which had not been disclosed in the writ petition.

¶23

Key takeaways

The record showed inconsistent family-member documentation: a certificate dated 14.12.1998 showed only the father Syed Mohd. Fazil Hussain as the sole family member of the deceased, while the District Magistrate's letter dated 29.03.2005 listed the husband and five stepsons without Smt. Nazuk Jahan, who received family pension and was shown as daughter in the document dated 06.12.2025.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Manju Rani Chauhan, J.) dismissed a writ petition under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 filed by the stepson of an Assistant Teacher who died in harness on 06.08.1998, seeking a direction for appointment on compassionate ground or decision of his pending application dated 17.02.2026. The compassionate appointment application was moved for the first time in 2026, about 28 years after the death; family pension had already been granted to the petitioner's father pursuant to orders in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26064 of 2009 (disposed 17.01.2024) and the DBO Saharanpur order dated 09.09.2025; the record contained inconsistent family-member certificates (14.12.1998 vs. 29.03.2005) and the petitioner had not disclosed earlier writ petitions mentioned in his application dated 05.01.2026. Held: the petitioner failed to make out any case; writ petition dismissed, no order as to costs.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 3681 of 2026

Mohd Mosin

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of Up And 2 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Mahtab Alam
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Jay Prakash Singh

¶9

Court No. - 52

¶10

HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

¶11

The petitioner has preferred present writ petition with a prayer to direct respondent nos. 2 & 3 to give appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground on the post of Assistant Teacher under the provisions of U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 (for short, "the Rules, 1974"), and to direct the respondent no. 2 to consider the claim of the petitioner to appoint him on compassionate ground.

¶12

Placing the brief facts of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Noor Jahan Begum was legally married wife of Syed Mohd. Fazil Hussain. Noor Jahan was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the year 1985 and she died-in-harness on 06.08.1998. After the death of Noor Jahan Begum, husband of the deceased applied for family pension before the competent authority. The authorities without considering Syed Mohd. Fazil Hussain as husband of Noor Jahan, rejected the claim of Syed Mohd. Fazil Hussain (petitioner's father). Aggrieved by the said, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26064 of 2009 was filed before this Court, which was disposed of by order dated 17.01.2024 with a direction that in case any subsequent application is filed, the respondent concerned shall take all endeavours to decide the same by a reasoned decision, expeditiously, in accordance with law.

¶13

In compliance of the aforesaid order, the District Basic Education Officer, Saharanpur has passed order dated 09.09.2025 accepting the claim of petitioner's father, accordingly, family pension was granted in favour of

¶14

WRIA No. 3681 of 2026

¶15

¶16

the petitioner's father Syed Mohd. Fazil Hussain on 06.12.2025. The document regarding payment of family pension has been placed, wherein total amount of Rs. 82,368/- has been distributed amongst Syed Mohd. Fazil Hussain (mentioned as husband), Smt. Nazuk Jahan (mentioned as daughter), Mohd. Asif (mentioned as son), Mohd. Mosin (mentioned as son), which is towards family pension.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the aforesaid, it is clear that the petitioner who was son of Syed Mohd Fazil Hussain and stepson of Noor Jahan was treated as entitled for family pension. Accordingly, the petitioner comes within the ambit of 'family' as defined under Rule-2(c) of the Rules, 1974. The petitioner being fully qualified and educated for being appointed as Assistant Teacher under the Rules, 1974, moved an application dated 17.02.2026 before the respondent no. 3 for considering his appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. The same is pending consideration before the respondent no. 3, therefore, a direction may be issued to respondent no. 3 to decide the same within some stipulated period.

¶18

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 submits that from the record it is clear that the application for appointment on compassionate ground has been moved for the first time in the year 2026 after a lapse of about 28 years since the date of death of Noor Jahan (stepmother of the petitioner) in the year 1998, however, there is no whisper about the delay in filing the said application. He further submits that from the documents as annexed as Annexure No. 3, the petitioner has also been paid family pension, therefore, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner suffers from any financial hardship.

¶19

From the order dated 09.09.2025 passed by District Basic Education Officer, Saharanpur, annexed at Page-15 of the writ petition, while complying with the directions of this Court issued by order dated 17.01.2024 passed in Writ-A No. 26064 of 2009, mentions about two certificates, wherein, in one of the documents dated 14.12.1998 only petitioner's father, namely, Syed Mohd. Fazil Hussain (45 years) is shown as the only family member of the deceased Noor Jahan, however, in another letter as issued by the District Magistrate dated 29.03.2005 six

¶20

WRIA No. 3681 of 2026

¶21

¶22

persons have been shown as family members of the deceased Noor Jahan, namely, Syed Mohd. Fazil Hussain (husband) and five stepsons without mentioning about the name of Smt. Nazuk Jahan, who has received family pension and is shown as daughter in the document dated 06.12.2025.

¶23

The record reveals that in the application dated 05.01.2026 moved by the petitioner, claiming himself to be stepson of the deceased Noor Jahan, details of some earlier writ petition have been mentioned, which have not been disclosed in the writ petition.

¶24

Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, this Court finds that the petitioner has failed to make out any case in his favour.

¶25

The writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly.

¶26

No order as to costs.

¶27

(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)

¶28

March 18, 2026 DS

¶29

Digitally signed by :- DIGAMBER SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd Mosin v. State of Up and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Mosin v. State of Up and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Girvar Singh Vs the Board of Revenue and Others

Ram Het Gautam Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Durga Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Anil Kumar vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ramchandra Vishwakarma and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt Sapna Arya vs State of U.P. and 5 Others