Quashing multiple rejection orders, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Haryana Government to consider a Brigadier’s son eligible for compassionate appointment under its welfare policy, holding that the state cannot deny benefits to the dependent of an Army officer declared a “battle casualty” by drawing an artificial distinction between a “battle casualty” and a “martyr”.

Brig Abhimanyu Singh Rathore laid down his life on July 30, 2023, during Operation Snow Leopard, described in the judgment as the “Galwan incident with China”. A Battle Casualty Certificate was issued on January 10, 2024.

“The court is deeply anguished and appalled to note the typically unsympathetic and uncooperative stance of the respondent-State, to unnecessarily complicate and embroil simple and clear Policy Instructions into semantics and legalese,” Justice Nidhi Gupta said.

Allowing the writ petition by Saksham Rathore, the court quashed rejection orders dated February 16, 2024, May 24, 2024 and December 4, 2025, directing the state to treat him as eligible under the applicable policies and grant compassionate appointment within four months.

The petitioner, a BCom graduate and MBA degree holder, contended that despite his father’s battle casualty status and the Army forwarding his application, his claim was rejected through non-speaking orders based on an erroneous interpretation of its policies.

The state argued that compassionate appointment was available only to dependents of “martyrs”. It further claimed that Brigadier Rathore had died while undergoing treatment for Cerebral Venous Thrombosis (CVT), the onset of which occurred at Leh during the operation.

Rejecting the contention, the court termed the submission “incomprehensible”, noting that although the 2014 policy referred to “martyrs”, it contained “an error apparent” because the armed forces did not recognise that expression. Instead, the military uses the term “battle casualty” for personnel killed in action or those who die in an operational area. The court observed that the term “martyr” carried political and religious connotations and was not considered appropriate for defence personnel who died in the line of duty.

It was “crass and ignorant” to describe as mere disease an ailment suffered by a soldier while serving at an active battlefront, the court said.