Denial of Benefits to War Heroes on Technical Grounds is Unjust and Arbitrary: Punjab & Haryana High Court

In a significant ruling, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has allowed the petition of a battle casualty veteran's son, directing the State of Punjab to consider his claim for a government job under the category of "son of a war hero/battle casualty personnel" as per the policy dated August 19, 1999. The Court found the denial of benefits to the petitioner’s family as legally unsustainable and fundamentally unjust.

Battle Casualty Recognition and Employment Claim
The case revolved around petitioner No.1, an ex-serviceman of the Indian Army who was grievously wounded in an anti-terror operation by an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) blast while serving in Operation Rakshak in Jammu & Kashmir. As a result of his injuries, which included "Splinter Injury (Rt) Forearm with Compound Comminuted Fracture Lower End of the Humerus (Rt) Optd with Multiple Splinter Injuries, Bilateral Acoustic Trauma," he was placed in a low medical category and ultimately released from the Army on December 31, 2008.
Despite his battle casualty status, the claim of his son for employment under the State's policy for war heroes was rejected on the grounds that the soldier was not discharged from service directly due to his disability but had instead completed his tenure.
Court Criticizes "Hyper-Technical" Interpretation of the Policy
The High Court, presided over by Justice Aman Chaudhary, observed that the reasoning adopted by the authorities in denying the benefit was "unjust, iniquitous, and arbitrary." The Court noted that while the petitioner had been acknowledged as a battle casualty and placed in a low medical category, the refusal of benefits merely because he was not medically boarded out was a flawed approach.
Citing its own decision in Manjit Kaur v. State of Haryana & Others (CWP-19612-2018), the Court reiterated that ex gratia benefits should be extended to all personnel who sustain life-altering disabilities in operational areas, regardless of whether they were formally discharged on medical grounds. The ruling emphasized that "merely because a soldier was retained in service despite his injuries does not negate his status as a battle casualty or diminish his entitlement to benefits."
Supreme Court Precedents on Ex-Servicemen Entitlements
The judgment also relied on key Supreme Court decisions, including Sansar Chand Atri v. State of Punjab [(2002) 4 SCC 154], where the apex court held that a soldier who has earned a pension after completing the requisite service, irrespective of whether he was released, discharged, or retired, must be treated as an ex-serviceman. The Court further cited Mahavir Singh Narwal v. Union of India (2004), where it was ruled that individuals in a low medical category at the time of release should be treated as invalided from service for the purpose of disability pension.
High Court Overrules State’s Objections and Grants Relief
The Court rejected the State’s argument that the veteran’s continued service disqualified his family from employment benefits, stating that such an interpretation of the policy was contrary to both the spirit of the law and judicial precedents. Justice Aman Chaudhary strongly condemned the State’s rigid stance, remarking that "the purpose of the policy is to ensure that families of ex-servicemen who have sacrificed for the nation are financially secured, and not to create artificial barriers that defeat the policy’s objective."
The Court further referred to Ex-Naik Parmod Kumar v. Union of India (CWP-19417-2007), where it was held that denying pensionary benefits on the basis of a soldier’s mode of discharge—whether voluntary or on medical grounds—was unreasonable and arbitrary.
Final Decision: State Ordered to Consider Petitioner’s Employment Claim
In its concluding remarks, the Court directed the Punjab government to consider petitioner No.2 for appointment in accordance with the policy dated August 19, 1999, within a period of three months. The impugned order rejecting the claim was set aside.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment
Recognition of Battle Casualties: The High Court reaffirmed that a soldier's battle casualty status is not negated merely because he was retained in service until tenure completion.
Pro-Ex-Servicemen Approach: The ruling aligns with the Supreme Court’s broader interpretation of ex-servicemen benefits, emphasizing that technical distinctions between “discharged” and “retired” should not be used to deny entitlements.
Policy Must Align with Legislative Intent: The Court stressed that employment benefits for war heroes and their families should be granted in line with the spirit of the law, rather than relying on a narrow or restrictive reading of government policies.
This landmark ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that war heroes and their families receive their rightful dues, setting a precedent against bureaucratic hurdles that hinder the welfare of veterans.

 Date of Decision: 27 January 2025