‘Battle casualty’: Punjab and Haryana High Court orders job for late Army man’s son

“Death of the father of the petitioner had taken place while he was in active service during battle at a time when India was involved in war with the neighbouring country. In this circumstance, for the respondent to state that the father of the petitioner had died due to disease and not killed in action, is preposterous,” the July 17 order read. 

The high court also described the state’s stand as “crass and ignorant” after it argued that the petitioner’s father had died due to a disease. The court clarified that the medical condition had developed while the officer was serving in a high-altitude operational area and, said, if anything, it was a ‘disease’ suffered by a soldier while in service at an active battlefront. 

“In this circumstance, the stand of the respondents (state) that the father of the petitioner had not died in service and was not a ‘martyr’ and not covered under the policy, is unacceptable,” the court added. 

Operation Snow Leopard, officer’s demise

The man claimed that he is a graduate in Bachelor of Commerce and an MBA degree holder and the son of Late Brigadier Abhimanyu Singh Rathore, who was a serving officer of the Indian Army. 

However, he added that unfortunately, on July 30, 2023, his father 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 by a battle casualty certificate dated January 10, 2024 in terms of the applicable policy. 

Justice Nidhi Gupta expressed deep anguish and said she was “appalled” by the state’s “unsympathetic and uncooperative” stance.

The petitioner submitted that he applied for compassionate appointment after his application was forwarded by the Army authorities on January 24, 2024. However, his request was rejected through non-speaking orders dated February 16, 2024, May 24, 2024 and December 4, 2025. He was also informed that the 2023 policy could not be applied retrospectively, despite his contention that his case was independently covered by the 2018 policy as well.

‘Battle casualty, martyr’

Rejecting the state’s argument that he had merely died due to a disease, the court observed that had he not been posted at such a high altitude, he was unlikely to have suffered from CVT (Cerebral Venous Thrombosis), which occurs when a blood clot forms in a vein in the brain. 

The court further noted that Haryana’s 2014 policy initially granted compassionate appointments only to dependants of “martyrs”. However, it observed that the Armed Forces do not recognise the expression “martyr”; instead, they use the term “battle casualty” for personnel killed in action or those who die in operational areas.

It added that the expression “martyr” carries political and religious connotations and is not considered appropriate for defence personnel who die in the line of duty.

The court observed that the 2018 policy expressly expanded the scope of compassionate appointments to include dependants of “battle casualties”, while the 2023 policy further clarified the definition of “battle casualty”. Consequently, the state’s objection that the petitioner was not the dependant of a “martyr” was contrary to its own policies.

Accordingly, the high court allowed the petition, quashed the rejection orders, and directed the authorities to treat the petitioner as eligible under the applicable policies and grant him compassionate appointment within four months.

Arguments 

The petitioner was represented by advocate Roopan Atwal, who submitted tha the petitioner, being a dependent of a “Battle Casualty”, is eligible for compassionate appointment in terms of the policy letter dated September 28, 2018, issued by the state. 

He argued that the said rejection by the authorities is based on an incorrect interpretation of policies and, in actual fact, the case of the petitioner is covered in all policies. 

Deputy Advocate General Suneel Ranga argued that the policy is explicit in stipulating that only those persons can be considered for compassionate appointment who are dependents of ‘martyrs’, and not of ‘battle casualty’. He further added that the father of the petitioner had not died in action, but had died due to disease and as such the petitioner is not eligible for consideration under the policy.