Allahabad High Court

MOHD. ANEESversusMANAGING DIRECTOR/CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND 2 OTHERS

Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: DINESH PATHAK

Holding

The petition is disposed of without merits, directing the petitioner to move a fresh representation before the Chief Manager for consideration under the Dying in Harness Rules.

Summary

The petitioner, Mohd. Anees, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the bank to consider his claim for appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules following his father's death while in service. He alleged that despite multiple representations, the bank had not acted on his request for a compassionate appointment as a Class‑IV employee. The respondents argued that the grievance should be addressed by the Chief Manager of the bank and did not oppose a direction for the petitioner to file a fresh representation. The Court found that keeping the matter pending would serve no useful purpose and ordered the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Chief Manager within three weeks, with the bank to decide it within three months. No merits of the petition were examined, and the writ petition was disposed of with liberty to approach the appropriate authority.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court should issue a mandamus directing the bank to appoint the petitioner under the Dying in Harness Rules.
Whether the petition is maintainable in its present form or should be redressed through internal representation.
Whether the grievance can be more appropriately dealt with by the Chief Manager of the bank.

Subjects

Dying in Harness Rules
compassionate appointment
mandamus
writ petition
fresh representation
public authority

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - A No. - 14007 of 2026

Mohd. Anees
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer And 2
Others .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Manish Gupta, Sarita Singh, Sr.
Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Jainendra Kumar Mishra

Court No. - 32
HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel
representing State-respondents and perused the record on board.

2. This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs:

"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
directing/commanding the respondent authorities to consider the case of
petitioner under Dying in Harness Rules due to death of his Father Mohd.
Saleem who was employee as Clerk in Indian Overseas Bank.

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
directing/commanding the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner
as per his qualification in Class-IV employee under dying in harness rules
of the Bank."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's father died
in harness on 26.12.2017 while serving as a Clerk. Despite the several
representations/requests made by him, his claim for appointment on
compassionate grounds has not been considered by the authority concerned.

4. Sri Jainendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents No. 1 to 3 has contended that the grievance of the present
petitioner regarding appointment on compassionate grounds can be more
appropriately redressed by the Chief Manager (respondent No. 2), and he has
no objection, in case, a direction is issued for expeditious disposal of a fresh
representation to be moved by the petitioner within such stipulated period as
may be directed by this Court.

5. In this conspectus, as above, no useful purpose would be served by
WRIA No. 14007 of 2026
2

keeping this matter pending. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to
finally dispose of the present writ petition, without making any observation
on the merits of the case, with liberty to the petitioner to move a fresh
representation before the Chief Manager (respondent No. 2), to ventilate his
grievance, as averred in the present writ petition, within a period of three
weeks from today, along with a certified copy of this order and a self
attested copy of the present writ petition, and, in turn, he shall consider and
decide the same in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably, within a
period of three months from the date of production of such representation.

6. With the aforesaid observation, present writ petition is disposed of.

September 8, 2026
vinay
(Dinesh Pathak,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
VINAY KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…