The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled in favour of Saksham Rathore, the son of a late Army Brigadier who was officially declared a "Battle Casualty", holding that Haryana cannot deny compassionate appointment by drawing an artificial distinction between a "martyr" and a "battle casualty." Justice Nidhi Gupta quashed the State's rejection orders and directed the authorities to grant the benefit under the applicable policies.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by Saksham Rathore, whose father, Late Brigadier Abhimanyu Singh Rathore, died while serving during Operation Snow Leopard. The Army issued a Battle Casualty Certificate declaring his death as a battle casualty under the applicable military policy. The petitioner sought compassionate appointment under Haryana's policies dated September 28, 2018 and August 14, 2023. However, his request was rejected through three separate orders, with the State claiming that the policies applied only to dependents of "martyrs" and not "battle casualties."
The State also argued that the officer had died due to a medical condition rather than being killed in action and therefore the petitioner was not entitled to compassionate appointment.
Rejecting the State's stand, Justice Nidhi Gupta observed that the government's interpretation of its own policy was unsustainable.
The Bench observed,
"The term 'Martyr' is not recognized by the Armed Forces. Instead, the term 'Battle Casualty' is used to indicate that an Armed Forces personnel member was killed in action or died in an operational area."
The Court noted that Haryana itself expanded its policy in 2018 to expressly include dependents of battle casualty personnel and later framed the 2023 policy specifically for battle casualties. Therefore, denying the benefit to the petitioner was contrary to the State's own policy framework.
The Bench also rejected the State's contention that the Brigadier's death was merely due to a disease. It observed that the medical condition developed while he was serving in a high-altitude operational area during Operation Snow Leopard and that such circumstances could not be viewed in isolation from military service. The Court described the State's approach as "unacceptable" while interpreting welfare policies meant for armed forces personnel.
The Court further relied on earlier Punjab and Haryana High Court decisions holding that once defence authorities declare a death as a battle casualty, the State cannot dispute that status while extending statutory benefits.
Allowing the writ petition, the High Court quashed the rejection letters dated February 16, 2024, May 24, 2024 and December 4, 2025. It directed the Haryana authorities to treat the petitioner as eligible under the State's compassionate appointment policies applicable to battle casualties and grant him compassionate appointment. The Court ordered the exercise to be completed within four months from the receipt of the certified copy of the order.
Case Title: Saksham Rathore v. State of Haryana and Others
Case Number: CWP-5345-2026 (O&M)
Judge: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nidhi Gupta
Decision Date: 17 July 2026
