HC admonishes Punjab Government for denying job benefits to war hero's son

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has admonished the Punjab Government in a case where the benefit of employment was denied to the son of a soldier, who suffered injury in an anti-terror operation in Jammu and Kashmir.

The court made it clear that the State’s reasoning for rejection of the claim under the “son of war hero/battle casualty personnel” category was unjustified and “in the teeth” of a Supreme Court judgment in such matters.

Justice Aman Chaudhary’s Bench, during the course of hearing, was told that Surinder Pal, a retired Army personnel, suffered grievous injuries in an IED blast during Operation Rakshak in Jammu and Kashmir, rendering him 80 per cent disabled for life. His son was denied job eligibility under the State’s 1999 policy on the ground that Pal was not discharged due to his disability but had completed his service tenure. The court, however, found the reasoning untenable.

Citing the court’s earlier ruling in the case of “Manjit Kaur versus the State of Haryana”, Justice Chaudhary asserted a similar rejection had been set aside as being contrary to the policy’s objective. “The procedure for invalidment being in place, the decision whereof vested with the authorities and the continuation of the petitioner in service, despite having suffered disability, rather goes to his credit while the same has been construed otherwise, appals this court,” the Bench asserted.

The court also referred to the provisions of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, which said battle casualties should be retained in service until their term expired unless they opted for invalidation.

Quoting the Supreme Court ruling in the case of “Sansar Chand Atri versus State of Punjab:, the court reiterated that any individual who completed his service tenure, irrespective of being 'released,' 'discharged,' or 'retired,' was required to be treated as an ex-serviceman for entitlement to benefits.

Setting aside the rejection, the court observed: “It stands unequivocally established that the claim of the petitioner is both legally sustainable and substantively justified, due to the legislative intent behind the policy, which, when harmoniously construed with fairness and equity, precludes a rigid or hyper-technical interpretation that would undermine its very essence.

“Judicial precedents, serving as guiding beacons, affirm that the nature of discharge cannot be wielded as an instrument to deny legitimate entitlements, thereby binding the respondents by the principles of justice and the imperatives of settled law to extend the benefits envisioned under the policy in a manner that upholds both its letter and spirit,” Justice Chaudhary concluded, while directing the State to consider the son for appointment in terms of the policy.