Shreya Gupta
On February 10, 2025, The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently ruled in favor of a soldier’s son, affirming his entitlement to a job under the category of “son of a war hero/battle casualty personnel” as per the Punjab government’s 1999 policy.
This case was decided by a single-judge bench of Justice Aman Chaudhary. The Court held that the denial of benefits to the petitioner’s son on the grounds that the soldier continued in service despite his disability was unjust and arbitrary. It expressed dismay over the authorities’ reasoning, stating that instead of penalizing the petitioner for continuing in service despite his injury, his commitment should have been recognized to grant the benefit.
The petitioner had joined the Indian Army in 1982 and suffered an injury due to an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) blast during an anti-terror operation in Jammu and Kashmir. As a result of the injury, he was released from the Army in 2008 under a low medical category, with his disability being officially attributed to military service. Seeking benefits under the Punjab government’s 1999 policy, which provides appointments to dependents of war heroes as a mark of honor and gratitude, the petitioner applied for a job for his son. However, his claim was rejected on the basis that his discharge from service was not due to his disability but rather because he had completed his service tenure. Aggrieved by the rejection, the petitioner approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The Court strongly criticized the denial of benefits. The Court ruled that the petitioner’s claim was both legally and substantively justified, emphasizing that the 1999 policy should be interpreted in a manner that aligns with fairness and equity rather than being applied rigidly or technically. The judgment underscored that judicial precedents affirm that the nature of a soldier’s discharge cannot be used as a justification to deny rightful entitlements. The Court made it clear that the Punjab government was bound by principles of justice and settled law, thereby necessitating that the benefits envisioned under the policy be granted in accordance with its true intent.
Additionally, the Court referred to a similar case, Manjit Kaur v. State of Haryana and Others CWP-23961-2017(O&M), where a BSF constable retained in service despite injury was not denied benefits. It emphasized that recognition of a soldier’s valor should not become a ground for depriving them of policy benefits. Applying the same rationale, the Court concluded that the petitioner’s son was entitled to a job and directed the Punjab government to consider his appointment within three months.
Case Title: Surinder Pal and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors
Case Number: CWP-35880-2019
Bench: Justice Aman Chaudhary