Haryana Cannot Dispute Army's Battle Casualty Certificate to Deny Compassionate Appointment, Rules Punjab and Haryana HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed three rejection orders and directed Haryana to grant compassionate appointment to the son of Brigadier Abhimanyu Singh Rathore, who died during Operation Snow Leopard against Chinese aggression in Leh.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, sitting at Chandigarh, has ruled that the State of Haryana cannot refuse compassionate appointment to the son of an Army officer whose death was officially declared a “Battle Casualty” by the Central Government, by recasting that death as one caused by disease. Justice Nidhi Gupta, sitting singly, allowed a civil writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by Saksham Rathore, son of the late IC-515111M Brigadier Abhimanyu Singh Rathore, who died on 30 July 2023 while serving in Operation Snow Leopard, the Indian Army's operation to counter Chinese aggression in the Galwan sector. The court quashed three rejection orders passed by the State between February 2024 and December 2025, and directed that compassionate appointment be granted within four months.

The Dispute Before the High Court

Brigadier Abhimanyu Singh Rathore was a serving Class I officer of the Indian Army posted at Leh, Ladakh as part of Operation Snow Leopard. He suffered Cerebral Venous Thrombosis (CVT) with onset at Leh on 1 January 2021, a condition the court noted is medically linked to high-altitude posting. He died on 30 July 2023 while undergoing treatment at Command Hospital, Chandigarh. The Indian Army's Integrated Headquarters, Ministry of Defence declared his death a “Battle Casualty” vide Battle Casualty Certificate dated 10 January 2024, in terms of Army Order 05/2020.

Saksham Rathore, a graduate holding a Bachelor of Commerce degree and an MBA, applied for compassionate appointment as the dependent son of a Battle Casualty officer. The application was forwarded by Army Authorities on 24 January 2024. Respondent No. 2, the State authority, rejected it by a non-speaking order dated 16 February 2024. When the petitioner pressed the alternative ground that he was covered under the Policy dated 28 September 2018, a second non-speaking order dated 24 May 2024 followed, now rejecting him on the ground that his father's case fell neither under the Policy dated 30 May 2014 nor the 2018 Policy. A third rejection came on 4 December 2025. All three orders were placed before the court as Annexures P-10, P-11, and P-13.

The Legal Issue: "Martyr" Versus "Battle Casualty"

The State's defence rested on two distinct arguments. First, it contended that Haryana's compassionate appointment policies cover only dependents of “martyrs” killed in action in border skirmishes, terrorist attacks, or riots, and not dependents of “battle casualties.” Second, and separately, it argued that even if the Battle Casualty Certificate were accepted, the Brigadier had not been “killed in action” but had died from disease, placing him outside the policy's scope.

The petitioner's counsel countered that the State's 2018 Policy expressly extended the compassionate appointment scheme to dependents of “battle casualty” officers, and that the subsequent 2023 Policy formalised and broadened that inclusion. The petitioner also argued that once the Central Government issues a Battle Casualty Certificate, the State is not at liberty to conduct its own parallel inquiry into the cause of death.

How the Bench Reasoned

Justice Nidhi Gupta addressed the terminology dispute first. The court explained that the 2014 Policy had introduced the term “Martyr,” but that term is not recognised by the Armed Forces. The term used within the military for a personnel member killed in action or dying in an operational area is “Battle Casualty.” The court observed that the 2018 Policy corrected this by explicitly extending the scheme to battle casualties. A bare reading of Policy letter dated 28 September 2018 showed it covered “dependents / family members of deceased martyrs/ battle casualty” and specifically included Class I and Class II officers.

On the State's submission that the 2023 Policy had no retrospective application, the court noted that the father had died on 30 July 2023, at which point he was a serving officer, and that the 2018 Policy “further clarified by Instructions dated 14.8.2023 would apply to the case of the petitioner.” The Policy dated 14 August 2023, titled the Compassionate Appointment (for the Family Member of Armed Forces and Central Armed Forces killed in Battle Casualty) Policy, 2023, defined “battle casualty” in clause 3(d) to include deaths due to cardiac arrest and natural calamities demanding exceptional courage, irrespective of the specific operation or area. The court held that the 2023 definition only removed any remaining ambiguity rather than creating a new entitlement.

Justice Gupta was equally direct on the State's disease argument. The court noted that CVT — the formation of a blood clot in a brain vein — is a recognised consequence of high-altitude deployment because reduced oxygen triggers hypoxia and dehydration, causing blood to thicken and increasing the risk of thrombosis. Brigadier Rathore's CVT had its onset at Leh on 1 January 2021, during active operations at a time India was engaged with Chinese forces on the border. The court called it “preposterous” for the State to contend that the Brigadier had died of disease and not in service, given that his medical condition was directly attributable to high-altitude operational posting.

The court also relied on a line of coordinate bench decisions. In Jai Dev v. State of Haryana and others, CWP-15796-2024, decided on 28 February 2025, a Single Bench had directed the State to grant ex-gratia and reward money once a Battle Casualty Certificate was issued, holding that the State could not re-examine that certificate. The State challenged that order in State of Haryana and others v. Jai Dev, LPA-2452-2025, decided on 22 August 2025. The Division Bench dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal, holding that once the Union of India certifies a death as a battle casualty, the State cannot dispute it for the purpose of denying welfare benefits. Justice Nidhi Gupta also cited Rita Saikia v. State of Haryana and others, CWP-22275-2014, decided on 2 June 2017; Major Arvind Kumar Suhag v. State of Haryana and others, CWP 19786/2009, decided on 24 May 2010; and Pushplata v. State of Haryana, 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 8773, all of which reiterated that “battle casualty” need not mean death from active hostilities and that State welfare policies must be interpreted liberally in favour of service personnel's families.

Having found the three rejection orders factually erroneous and legally untenable, Justice Gupta expressed that the court was “deeply anguished and appalled” by the State's stance of complicating clear policy instructions into semantics. The court held that even if any grey area had existed in interpretation, the State was obliged to take a beneficial and liberal view.

Outcome

The writ petition was allowed in its entirety. The rejection letters dated 16 February 2024, 24 May 2024, and 4 December 2025 (Annexures P-10, P-11, and P-13) were quashed. The respondents were directed to treat Saksham Rathore as eligible for compassionate appointment under the State of Haryana's policies for dependents of Battle Casualty officers, and to grant him the appointment accordingly. The court directed that the entire exercise be completed within four months of receipt of a certified copy of the order. All pending applications were disposed of.