SRINAGAR: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Punjab government to grant a job to the son of an Army veteran who sustained 80% disability in an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) blast during an anti-terror operation in Jammu and Kashmir in 2008.
The ruling, as per the Srinagar-based news-gathering agency Kashmir Dot Com, was delivered on January 27 last month and comes after years of the veteran’s battle with severe disability and systemic neglect.
The court slammed the state’s “technical” denial of benefits as “iniquitous, unjust, and arbitrary,” stating that the policy for war heroes must be interpreted with fairness and equity.
The court, presided over by Justice Aman Chaudhary, ruled that the petitioner’s claim was both “legally sustainable and substantively justified” and set aside the state’s earlier decision to deny the benefit under its 1999 policy for dependents of war heroes.
The petitioner, Surinder Pal, enrolled in the Indian Army on December 27, 1982, and was critically injured during Operation Rakshak while serving in Jammu and Kashmir.
He sustained multiple injuries, including a compound comminuted fracture in his right forearm and bilateral acoustic trauma, which left him with an 80% permanent disability. Despite being placed in a low medical category, he continued to serve until his release on December 31, 2008, upon completing his term of service.
The Punjab government had rejected the petitioner’s claim for a job for his son under the 1999 policy, arguing that Surinder Pal was not medically boarded out but had completed his service term. However, the court dismissed this reasoning, stating that the “continuation of the petitioner in service, despite having suffered a disability, rather goes to his credit.”
The court further observed that the state’s decision was “in teeth of” previous judgments, including the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sansar Chand Atri vs. State of Punjab, which held that ex-servicemen should not be denied benefits based on “technicalities.”
Justice Chaudhary, in his five-and-a-half-page judgment, quoted extensively from the 1999 policy, which aims to provide jobs to dependents of war heroes and battle casualties.
The policy states that ex-gratia is admissible to personnel who are disabled for life while serving in operational areas and are medically boarded out. However, the court clarified that the policy’s intent is to honor and support the families of those who sacrificed for the nation and that a “rigid or hyper-technical interpretation” would undermine its purpose.
The court also referred to its earlier decision in Manjit Kaur vs. State of Haryana, where it ruled that denying benefits to a soldier who continued to serve despite injuries was unjust. In that case, the court noted that the soldier’s “valor should not be a ground to deny benefits.” Similarly, in the present case, the court held that the petitioner’s disability, which was “attributable to military service,” should qualify his son for the benefit under the policy.
The judgment also pointed to the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, which state that battle casualties should be retained in service until the completion of their terms unless they are unwilling to serve or have exceptional medical reasons. The court observed that the petitioner’s retention in service, despite his injuries, was a testament to his dedication and should not be used against him.
In its concluding remarks, the court stated that the policy was framed to express “honor and gratitude” to the families of war heroes and that denying benefits on “technical grounds” would be “iniquitous, unjust, and arbitrary.”
The court directed the Punjab government to consider the petitioner’s son for appointment within three months and set aside the state’s earlier order dated September 4, 2018. (KDC)
