Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 96078
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Nidhi Gupta, J
Saksham Rathore – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CWP-5345-2026
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Compassionate Appointment
Act Referred
Headnote
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, son of a deceased Army Officer who laid down his life while serving in Operation Snow Leopard, sought compassionate appointment under the State of Haryana's policies for dependents of battle casualties. The respondents rejected the claim, contending that the deceased died of disease and was not a 'martyr' killed in action as defined by the policies. The petitioner challenged these rejections as arbitrary and legally flawed.
Findings of Court:
The Court observed that the State’s stance was uncooperative and failed to distinguish that deaths in performance of duty in operational areas, even if caused by medical complications linked to extreme conditions, fall under 'battle casualty' as per military records. The Court reaffirmed that state welfare policies must be interpreted liberally.
Issues: The main issues were whether a death certificate issued by Defence authorities declaring 'battle casualty' is binding on the State and whether a soldier’s death due to medical conditions in an operational duty area entitles their dependents to compassionate appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: When the competent Defence authorities classify a death as a 'Battle Casualty', the State government cannot unilaterally dispute this classification to deny legitimate welfare and compassionate benefits to the dependents, as such policies must be interpreted in a manner that favors the beneficiaries. Result : Writ petition allowed; rejection letters quashed; respondents directed to consider the petitioner for appointment.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Roopan Atwal
For the Respondents: Suneel Ranga
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. state cannot dispute defence-certified battle casualties via narrow policy interpretation. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Ms. Roopan Atwal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Suneel Ranga, D.A.G., Haryana,
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
Present Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for the issuance of a
writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the
petitioner, the son of a "Battle Casualty" Army OfÏcer who died during
"Operation Snow Leopard" (Galwan Operation with China), eligible under
the policy of State of Haryana for compassionate appointment to family
members of battle casualty personnel as per the Policies dated 28.09.2018
and 14.08.2023 (Annexures P-6 & P-7), by quashing the rejection letters
dated 16.02.2024, 24.05.2024 and 04.12.2025 (Annexures P-10, P-11 and
P-13) being non-speaking, factually and legally incorrect, and being against
the policy of the State and applicable Rules, and the action being against
the harmonious interpretation of the said Policy and also against the dicta
of Hon'ble Constitutional Courts in similar propositions.
DIVYANSHI
2026.07.21 10:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-5345-2026 (O&M) 2 of 15
2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that the Petitioner is a graduate in Bachelors of Commerce and an MBA
degree holder. The petitioner is the son of IC-515111M Late Brigadier
Abhimanyu Singh Rathore who was a serving OfÏcer of the Indian Army.
Unfortunately, on 30.07.2023, the father of the Petitioner laid down his
life while serving in "Operation Snow Leopard" (Galwan incident) and his
death was duly declared as a "Battle Casualty” by the Military Authorities
vide Battle Casualty Certificate dated 10.01.2024 (Annexure P-1), in terms
of the applicable policy, that is, Army Order 05/2020 (Annexure P-2). The
father of the Petitioner passed away due to extreme operational climatic
conditions in Leh as part of "Operation Snow Leopard", an operation
launched by the Indian Army to counter Chinese aggression and halt the
advancing Chinese forces gaining territory in India.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
being dependent of "Battle Casualty" is eligible for compassionate
appointment in terms of Policy letter dated 28.09.2018 (Annexure P-6)
issued by the respondent-State. It is submitted that the aforesaid Policy
was further formalized by the Govt. of Haryana vide Gazette Notification
dated 14.08.2023 (Annexure P-7). Hence, as the petitioner was entitled to
be considered for compassionate appointment under the above said
Policy (Annexure P-6), being son of the Battle Casualty Class 1 OfÏcer.
Accordingly, petitioner had submitted his application which was
forwarded by the Army Authorities vide letter dated 24.01.2024
(Annexure P-9). However, the same was rejected by the respondent No.2
DIVYANSHI
2026.07.21 10:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-5345-2026 (O&M) 3 of 15
by passing a completely non-speaking order dated 16.02.2024 (Annexure
P-10). The petitioner was also verbally informed that although the case of
the petitioner was covered under the Policy of 14.08.2023 (Annexure P-7),
but the said Policy did not have retrospective application. When the
petitioner pointed out that in any case, the case of the petitioner is
covered under the previous Policy dated 28.09.2018 (Annexure P-6), the
respondent passed another non-speaking order dated 24.05.2024
(Annexure P-11) now rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground
that he is not covered under the previous Policy dated 30.05.2014
(Annexure P-3) and even under Policy dated 28.09.2018 (Annexure P-6).
Learned counsel contends that the said rejection by the
respondent is based on an incorrect interpretation of policies. It is
submitted that in actual fact, the case of the petitioner is covered in all
policies. The policies explicitly governing the case of the petitioner is
28.0
