Nature Of Discharge Irrelevant: Punjab & Haryana HC Allows Claim For Job In Category Of Son Of War Hero/Battle Casualty Personnel
The Punjab & Haryana High Court was considering a Petition filed by Army Personnel's kin seeking a job under the policy for a job in the category of son of a war hero/battle casualty personnel.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court while allowing claim of an Army Personnel's kin for a job in the category of son of a war hero/battle casualty personnel has held that the nature of discharge cannot be wielded as an instrument to deny legitimate entitlements.
The Court was considering a Petition filed by Army Personnel's kin seeking job under the policy for a job in the category of son of a war hero/battle casualty personnel.
The single-bench of Justice Aman Chaudhary observed, "On cumulative consideration of the matter, it stands unequivocally established that 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 Petitioner was represented by Advocate Navdeep Singh while the Respondent was represented by Additional Advocate General Amarpreet Singh Bains.
Facts of the Case
The father of the Petitioner was wounded in an anti-terror operation by an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Blast while being deployed on a quick reaction team duty during Operation Rakshak in Jammu & Kashmir and ultimately released in low medical category from the army with disability that was assessed to be at 80% for life.
The premise of rejecting the claim of the benefit sought under Policy was the manner of his exit, for it was not due to his disability but upon completion of terms of his service. The same was assailed by the Petitioner.
Reasoning By Court
The Court at the outset pointed out that the premise of rejection has already been rejected by the Court in Manjit Kaur vs. State of Haryana and others, against which no LPA was filed.
"The procedure for invalidment 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, appals this Court...," the Court observed.
The Court was of the view that the impugned decision is also in teeth of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Sansar Chand Atri vs. State of Punjab and another. It also discussed Mahavir Singh Narwal vs. Union of India and another in which it was held that “On careful perusal of the aforesaid rule it is manifestly clear that invalidated from service is necessary condition for grant of disability pension. What has to be seen for entitlement for disability pension is whether an individual at the time of his release was in a low medical category than that in which he was recruited if it was so then such person will be treated as invalidated from service.”
It also mentioned Ex. Naik Parmod Kumar vs. Union of India and others, in which it was held that in a case of entitlement to pension that any differentiation viz. discharged on compassionate ground or on account of disability suffered, attributable to Military Service or aggravated by it would clearly be unreasonable, injudicious, illogical and arbitrary.
"The policy dated 19.08.1999, Annexure P-2 was framed by the Government of Punjab for granting appointments of honour and gratitude to dependents of members of the families of the War Heroes, who were bona fide residents of State of Punjab, which in itself says it all. It was solely on account of the fact that as to he though undeniably had suffered a battle casualty and placed in a low medical category, but since was not discharged from service by the authorities, the benefit of which would not enure is iniquitous, unjust and arbitrary, to say the least," the Court observed.
The Court thus concluded that the claim of the Petitioner is legitimate.
Cause Title:
Appearances:
Petitioner- Advocate Navdeep Singh, Advocate Roopan Atwal
Respondent- Additional Advocate General Amarpreet Singh Bains.
Click here to read/ download Order
