27 years on, Punjab and Haryana HC rejects plea to quash War Heroes’ job policy

Justice Sandeep Moudgil observed that the objective behind the policy dated August 19, 1999, was “towards giving due recognition of the supreme sacrifice made by a ‘war hero’” and to provide appointments as a mark of “Honour and Gratitude”.

“Such appointment could not be viewed only towards providing a source of sustenance to the dependent family members,” the Bench observed, adding that it was “an expression of gratitude of a thankful Nation on account of a life having been laid down by a ‘war hero’”.

Justice Moudgil distinguished the policy from ordinary compassionate appointments, which aim to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a government employee who dies in harness and help it tide over the sudden financial crisis.

Justice Moudgil also referred to a ruling delivered by a coordinate Bench on October 6, 2010, in which the Court observed that “the factor or factum of dependency is alien and irrelevant to such like extraordinary decisions taken to meet out extraordinary situations”.

The High Court also examined the petitioners’ reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in Umesh Kumar Nagpal versus the State of Haryana.

“The said decision lays down the principles governing compassionate appointment, the underlying object being to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of an employee who dies in harness and to enable it to tide over the sudden financial crisis. The policy under challenge in the present case, however, has been framed specifically for the dependents of War Heroes who have sacrificed their lives or have suffered disability for the Nation and, as pleaded by the State, is distinct from the ordinary scheme of compassionate appointment,” the Bench added.

Justice Moudgil observed that the judgment, “though binding within its field, cannot by itself invalidate a separate statutory/policy regime merely because that regime also provides appointment to dependents”.

The Bench added that the Supreme Court ruling did not lay down that every appointment made by the State in favour of a specified class under a special policy must necessarily be tested as compassionate employment.

The Court found a fundamental difficulty in the reliefs sought by the petitioners. While they sought to quash the policy instructions dated August 19, 1999, and September 24, 1999, they also sought consideration of their claims for Class I and Class II appointments under the very policy they wanted annulled.

“Such inconsistent reliefs cannot be granted simultaneously,” the Bench held, adding, “The alternative prayer does not survive once the foundation policy itself is challenged.”

Holding that the petitioners had failed to establish grounds for interference under its writ jurisdiction, the High Court dismissed the petition.