Quashing multiple rejection orders, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed Haryana to consider a Brigadier’s son eligible for compassionate appointment under its state welfare policy. The officer, Brigadier Abhimanyu Singh Rathore, had laid down his life on July 30, 2023, while serving in “Operation Snow Leopard” described in the judgment as “Galwan incident with China”.
The Bench, at the outset, asserted: “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 made it clear that the state could not deny compassionate appointment to the son of the officer declared a “Battle Casualty” by drawing an artificial distinction between it and a “martyr”. Such a stand was contrary to the state’s own policies and settled judicial precedent. Quashing three rejection orders, the court directed the state to treat the petitioner as eligible under the applicable policies and grant him compassionate appointment within four months.
Justice Gupta passed the order while allowing the writ petition filed by Saksham Rathore. The Bench was told that Brigadier Rathore passed away due to extreme operational climatic conditions in Leh as part of “Operation Snow Leopard” launched by the Indian Army to counter “Chinese aggression and halt the advancing Chinese forces gaining territory in India”. His death was declared a “Battle Casualty” by military authorities through a Battle Casualty Certificate dated January 10, 2024.
The petitioner—a B.Com graduate and MBA degree holder—sought quashing of rejection letters dated February 16, 2024, May 24, 2024, and December 4, 2025, contending that being the dependent of a battle casualty Class-I officer, he was entitled to compassionate appointment under Haryana’s policy letter dated September 28, 2018. He asserted that despite the Army forwarding his application, it was rejected through non-speaking orders based on an erroneous interpretation of the applicable policies.
The state opposed the petition, contending that the relevant policies extended compassionate appointment only to dependents of “martyrs” and not to “battle casualties”. It further maintained that Brigadier Rathore had passed away on July 30, 2023, while undergoing treatment at Command Hospital, Chandigarh, after suffering “CVT with Congestive Venopathy with Supratentorial and Infratentorial Venous Infarct with Dural Arteriovenous Fistula”, the onset at Leh, Ladakh, on January 1, 2021, during Operation Snow Leopard.
Dealing with the state’s contention that the policies applied only to “martyrs”, the court termed the submission incomprehensible. Justice Gupta noted that the original policy dated May 30, 2014, referred to “martyrs”, but contained “an error apparent” because the Armed Forces did not recognise that expression.
Instead, the expression “Battle Casualty” is used to denote personnel killed in action or those who died in an operational area. The court further 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.
Justice Gupta added the 2014 policy was expanded to explicitly include “Battle Casualties” vide policy letter dated September 28, 2018. The court held that Brigadier Rathore had admittedly been declared a battle casualty by the Army authorities. As such, “the case of the petitioner is squarely covered under the policy dated September 28, 2018, being the son of a ‘Battle Casualty’ Class I officer.”
The court further noted that Haryana subsequently notified the Compassionate Appointment (for the Family Member of Armed Forces and Central Armed Forces killed in Battle Casualty) Policy, 2023, which expressly defined “battle casualty” as incidents declared by the defence authorities or Ministry of Home Affairs, including deaths occurring while performing bona fide official duties in war, border skirmishes, terrorist or militant attacks, United Nations peacekeeping operations, as well as deaths due to motor transport accidents, cardiac arrest, air crashes and natural calamities demanding exceptional courage and decisions towards performance of duties.
Consequently, the court held: “Thus, the objection of the respondents that petitioner cannot be offered compassionate appointment as he is not the dependent of a ‘martyr’, is contrary to the own stated policy of the respondent.”
On the state’s argument that Brigadier Rathore had died due to disease rather than in action, Justice Gupta asserted: “The 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 father of the petitioner had died due to disease and not killed in action, is preposterous”
Justice Gupta added it was “crass and ignorant for the respondents to state that the petitioner’s father died due to ‘disease’. “If anything, it was a ‘disease’ suffered by a soldier while in service at an active battlefront. In this circumstance, stand of the respondents that the petitioner’s father had not died in service and was not a ‘martyr’ and not covered under the policy, is unacceptable”.
Allowing the writ petition, the court quashed the rejection letters and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner, “the son of a ‘Battle Casualty’ Army Officer,” eligible under the Haryana Government’s policies and grant him compassionate appointment. The exercise was directed to be completed within four months from receiving the order’s certified copy.