111+223 STATE OF PUNJAB AND EX HAVALDAR (HONORARY NAIB SUBEDAR) SURINDER PAL AND ANR CORAM: Present: HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) CM-3099 61 days in filing the a filing the certified copies of the same. same are allowed and the delay of 6 CM-5025 for placing on record a short reply to the appeal filed by the appellants. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-5025 LPA No.1263 of 2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS VERSUS EX HAVALDAR (HONORARY NAIB SUBEDAR) SURINDER PAL AND ANR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Mr. Vipin Pal Yadav, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Ms. Jasneet Kaur, Advocate and Ms. Roopan Atwal, Advocate for the respondents. *** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) 3099-3100-LPA-2025 Present applications have been filed for condoning the delay of 61 days in filing the appeal along with an application filing the certified copies of the same. Keeping in view the contents mentioned in the application allowed and the delay of 61 days in filing the appeal, is condoned. Exempted from filing certified copies of the same. 5025-LPA-2025 Present application has been filed on behalf of the respondents for placing on record a short reply to the appeal filed by the appellants. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 5025-LPA-2025 in/and LPA No.1263 of 2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 07.07.2026 ........Appellants VERSUS EX HAVALDAR (HONORARY NAIB SUBEDAR) SURINDER PAL ........Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL r. Vipin Pal Yadav, Addl. A.G., Punjab. and . Roopan Atwal, Advocate for the respondents. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) been filed for condoning the delay of ppeal along with an application for exemption from Keeping in view the contents mentioned in the applications, the 1 days in filing the appeal, is condoned. Exempted from filing certified copies of the same. Present application has been filed on behalf of the respondents for placing on record a short reply to the appeal filed by the appellants. EX HAVALDAR (HONORARY NAIB SUBEDAR) SURINDER PAL been filed for condoning the delay of for exemption from , the 1 days in filing the appeal, is condoned. Present application has been filed on behalf of the respondents SAPNA GOYAL 2026.07.15 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-5025-LPA-2025 in/and LPA No.1263 of 2025 (O&M) -2- Keeping in view the contents mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Reply filed by the respondents, is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. LPA No.1263 of 2025 (O&M) 1. In the present appeal, challenge is to the judgment dated 27.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.35880 of 2019 by which, the writ petition filed by the respondents herein, who were the petitioners before the learned Single judge so as to claim the benefit job in view of the Policy dated 19.08.1999 has been allowed and a direction has been given to appoint the respondent No.2 herein in terms of the said policy. 2. Certain facts needs to be noticed for the correct appreciation of the issue in hand. 3. The respondent No.1, who is the father of respondent No.2, got enrolled in the Indian Army on 27.12.1982. He was wounded in the year 2001 in an anti-terror operation by an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) blast while being posted in Operation Rakshak in Jammu and Kashmir in the year 2001. In the said operation, he suffered “Splinter Injury (RT) Forearm with Compound Comminuted Fracture Lower End of the Humerus (RT) Optd with Multiple Splinter Injuries, Bilateral Acounstic Trauma”, which were conceded to be attributable to military service. 4. Though the respondent No.1 continued working for another period of seven years, due to which the injuries suffered by him got aggravated during operation Rakshak in Jammu and Kashmir to the extent of SAPNA GOYAL 2026.07.15 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-5025-LPA-2025 in/and LPA No.1263 of 2025 (O&M) -3- 20% disability, he was ultimately discharged from service in low medical category on 31.12.2008. 5. At the time of the discharge of respondent No.1, the injuries suffered by him had resulted in disability which was assessed at 80% for life as per the Battle Casualty Certificate. 6. The appellants–State of Punjab issued a Policy dated 19.08.1999 to honour War Heroes by providing appointment, in recognition of their services, to one eligible dependent against a Class-III or Class-IV post. The relevant portion of the said Instructions dated 19.08.1999 is as under:- “I am directed to address you on the subject noted above and to say that the Govt of Punjab has decided to offer appointments to the widow or a dependent member of the family of a War Hero, who achieves martyrdom as also to the War Hero. who has been discharged from service of disability suffered by him. These appointments will be to class-I or lower posts in State Services or in the Public Sector Undertakings in accordance with the qualifications of the applicants. These appointments will be known as "Appointments of Honour and Gratitude" to the War Heroes or their dependents. "War Hero" under this policy is defined as under :- "War Hero" means a defence services personnel or a Para Military forces personnel who is a bonafide resident of Punjab State, and is killed or discharged from service on account of disability suffered by him while fighting a war declared by Govt of India in operations in Kargil or any other sector in J&K in the on-going conflict with Pakistan or any other operation as may be notified by the State Govt as undertaken for preserving the Unity and integrity of the country on or after 1.1.1999.” 7. A bare perusal of the above would show that as per the definition of a War Hero provided in aforementioned instructions, a personnel, who is either killed while performing duty during an anti-terrorist operation or is wounded in such circumstances, which led to his discharge SAPNA GOYAL 2026.07.15 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-5025-LPA-2025 in/and LPA No.1263 of 2025 (O&M) -4- from service, the benefit of appointment against a Class III or IV post, can be given to the dependant of sole War Hero. 8. 8. As the said benefit of Policy was not being granted to the respondent No.1 in respect of the injuries suffered in operation Rakshak in the year 2001 resulting in 20% disability which disability got further aggravated to 80% during continuance of service due to which he was discharged from service in low medical category of respondent No.1 along with respondent No.2, approached this Court by filing a writ petition, which writ petition has been accepted by the learned Single Judge to hold that the disability suffered by the respondent No.1 in an anti-terrorist operation in Jammu and Kashmir in the year 2001 was the basis of him being treated in the low medical category so as to discharge him from service on 31.01.2008 hence, the claim of the respondent No.2 is covered for the grant of the benefit of an appointment to Class-III or Class-IV. 8. The said order dated 27.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge is under challenge by the appellants-State of Punjab. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-State argues that the basic requirement to be eligible under the Policy dated 19.08.1999 is that the injuries so suffered should be the reason for discharge from the service or death, which is missing in the facts and circumstances of the present case and the learned Single Judge while passing the judgment dated 27.01.2025, has not appreciated the said fact in the correct manner while interpreting the Policy dated 19.08.1999 hence, the SAPNA GOYAL 2026.07.15 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-5025-LPA-2025 in/and LPA No.1263 of 2025 (O&M) -5- impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge holding the respondent No.2 herein, as entitled for the benefit of appointment in Class-III or IV as per Policy dated 19.08.1999, is incorrect and the said judgment may kindly be set aside. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants-State further submits that not only the injuries should be suffered during continuance of War, or an operation promulgated for securing unity and integrity of India but also the discharge from service should also be immediate after suffering from such injuries hence, the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned judgment dated 27.01.2025, did not appreciate the said fact. 11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that keeping in view the documents brought on record coupled with the averments made in the writ petition, the discharge of the respondent No.1 from service was not due to completion of his tenure rather it was due to the injuries suffered in the said IED Blast due to which he was placed in the low medical category and in case, the respondent No.1 would have been fit enough to continue in service, he would have continued in service for another period of 04 years hence, the judgment dated 27.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, is perfectly valid and legal. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present case with their able assistance. 13. A bare perusal of the Policy dated 19.08.1999 would show that the only the requirement for the grant of benefit of job as per the said Policy SAPNA GOYAL 2026.07.15 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-5025-LPA-2025 in/and LPA No.1263 of 2025 (O&M) -6- is that the injury should have been suffered by personnel concerned in an anti-terrorist operation and such injury should be the reason for the discharge from in service. 14. Another argument which has been raised is that the discharge of the respondent No.1 from service was not based upon the injuries suffered by him during the anti-terrorist operation but the said discharge was on completion of his service tenure with the Indian Army. 15. By taking into account the second argument first as raised by the learned counsel for the appellants-State that the discharge of the respondent No.1 from service should have been immediate after suffering of the injury, qua the said argument, it should be noted that such interpretation even with utmost liberal approach is not made out from the plain reading of the Policy dated 19.08.1999. 16. Even if the discharge of the respondent No.1 from service is at a later point of time but the said discharge is due to the injuries suffered by him during such operation/War, the same will be covered under the Instructions to the Policy dated 19.08.1999. 17. It may be noticed that the discharge certificate of the respondent No.1 has been brought on record as Annexure P-1, the same is reproduced herein for the ready reference “BATTLE CASUALTY CERTIFICATE It is certified that No.2475345H Ex. Hav & Hony Nb Sub Surinder Pal Dader was discharged from service on 31 Dec 2008 (AN) being SAPNA GOYAL 2026.07.15 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-5025-LPA-2025 in/and LPA No.1263 of 2025 (O&M) -7- placed in low medical category. His disability was assessed as 80% for life by medical auth for disability “SPLINTER INJURY (RT) FOREARM WITH COMPOUND COMMUNITED FRACTURE LOWER END OF THE HUMEROUS (RT) OPTD WITH MULTIPLE SPLINTER INJURIES, BILATERAL, ACOUSTIC TRAUMA”, and declared as Battle Casualty vide Records the Punjab Pt II Order No. 1/114/0001/2001. Station: Ramgarh Dated : 23 Jul 2914 SD/- Major Record Officer For OIC Record.” 18. Had the respondent No.1-Surinder Pal remained in a fit medical condition, he could have continued upto 31.12.2012 hence, the discharge of the respondent No.1 in 2008 was prior to the total tenure, which respondent No.1 could have served the Indian Army and the said discharge from service before completion of tenure was due to the injuries suffered by respondent No.1. Therefore, the second requirement of the Instructions to the Policy dated 19.08.1999 is also covered in the case of respondent No.1-Surinder Pal so as to get the benefit of the Instructions. 19. A bare perusal of the above would show that the discharge of the respondent No.1 from Army is based upon the same injury, which he suffered in the year 2001 and at the time of his discharge has been assessed at 80% disability as per the Battle Casualty Certificate and the said discharge is due him being placed in the low medical category. The said discharge means that the respondent No.1 was not able to discharge the duties any further due to the injuries suffered during operation Rakshak. SAPNA GOYAL 2026.07.15 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-5025-LPA-2025 in/and LPA No.1263 of 2025 (O&M) -8- 20. The learned Single vide order dated 27.01.2025 has rightly appreciated all the facts and the appellants-State has not been able to prove that the judgment dated 27.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, is perverse either on facts or on law hence, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 21. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed. 22. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE 07-07-2026 Sapna Goyal (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/ reasoned: YES Whether reportable: YES SAPNA GOYAL 2026.07.15 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document