Appalled: Punjab & Haryana High Court on denial of job to son of injured soldier

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held that son of a soldier, who suffered injury in an anti-terror operation in J&K, was entitled to a job in the category of son of a war hero/battle casualty personnel as per the 1999 policy of Punjab government [Surinder Pal and anr. V. State of Punjab and Ors.]..Single-judge Justice Aman Chaudhary observed that the reason for denying the petitioner's son benefits under the 1999 policy—that the petitioner continued in service despite his disability—was untenable.The Court expressed dismay saying the continuation of the petitioner in service should have been construed to grant benefit to petitioner rather than denying it to him. "The procedure for invalidment (sic) 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, appalls this Court," the Court said..It was hearing plea of soldier Surinder Pal who joined the Indian Army in 1982 and suffered injury in an anti-terror operation by an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Blast in Jammu and Kashmir. Due to the same, he was released in low medical category from the army in 2008 with the disability being declared as attributable to military service.Following this, the petitioner claimed the benefit under the policy of Punjab government framed in August 1999, which mandated appointments of honor and gratitude to dependents of members of the families of the War Heroes, who were bona fide residents of State of Punjab. However, the petitioner was denied the benefit under the policy on the ground that his exit from the service was not due to his disability but upon completion of terms of his service.Aggrieved by the denial of benefit under 1999 policy, the petitioner moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court..The Court termed the denial of benefit to petitioner unjust and arbitrary. It said that claim of the petitioner was both legally sustainable and substantively justified, due to legislative intent behind the 1999 policy." The claim of the petitioner is both legally sustainable and substantively justified, due to legislative intent behind the policy, when harmoniously construed with fairness and equity, precludes a rigid or hyper-technical interpretation that would undermine its very essence, while 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," the single-judge stated..The Court also referred to the case Manjit Kaur vs. State of Haryana and others in which it was faced a similar clause as in the present case.In that case, the Court had held that merely because the BSF Authorities had retained an injured constable in the Central Para Military Forces after recognisning his valour and had not boarded him out on medical grounds, would not be a ground to deny the benefits on account of clause iv(ii) under the 1999 policy..Accordingly, the Court held the petitioner's son was entitled to a job and directed the Punjab government to consider him for appointment within three months of the order..Advocates Navdeep Singh and Roopan Atwal represented the petitioner while as Additional Advocate General Amarpreet Singh Bains appeared for the respondents. .[Read Judgment]