P&H HC Appalled On Denial Of Job To Son Of Injured Soldier In Anti-Terror Operation In J&K
Background of the Case
A soldier was grievously injured while performing his duty in an anti-terror operation in Jammu & Kashmir.
As per the existing government policy and welfare schemes, families of soldiers who have been killed or injured in action are often entitled to certain benefits, including preferential appointment or reservation in government jobs for their wards.
However, the son of the injured soldier was denied such a job.
The matter was brought before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which expressed deep concern and strong disapproval of the denial.
Legal and Constitutional Framework
1. Welfare of Armed Forces Personnel and Their Families
The State has a constitutional and statutory obligation to take care of the families of armed forces personnel who suffer injury or death while serving the nation.
This is part of the social welfare policies aimed at honoring sacrifices made for national security.
2. Policy of Preferential Appointment
Many States and the Central Government have framed policies under which children or dependents of soldiers killed or injured in action are entitled to reservation or preferential employment in government jobs.
Such policies are designed to:
Compensate for the sacrifice.
Provide social and economic security.
Promote the welfare of the families affected.
3. Article 14 and Article 16 of the Indian Constitution
Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.
However, Article 16(4) allows the State to make provisions for the reservation of appointments or posts in favor of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State.
The families of injured or deceased soldiers often fall under the category of special groups entitled to reservation or special consideration as a welfare measure.
Punjab and Haryana High Court’s Observations
Apprehensions Over Denial of Job
The High Court expressed its displeasure and described the denial as a grave injustice.
It observed that:
The injury to the soldier was sustained in the line of duty, serving the nation’s security interests.
Denying his son a job, despite entitlement under government policies, was contrary to the spirit of welfare and compassion.
Such denial undermines the moral and social contract between the State and its defenders.
Importance of Implementation of Welfare Schemes
The Court emphasized that policies framed for the benefit of families of soldiers must be strictly implemented without arbitrary or unreasonable denial.
The judiciary plays a role in ensuring the State’s obligations are fulfilled and the rights of such families protected.
Relevant Case Law and Precedents
(A) Union of India v. Raghubir Singh
This case discussed the principle that the State has a special responsibility towards the families of soldiers killed or incapacitated while serving.
The Supreme Court underscored the need for expeditious and fair discharge of welfare benefits.
(B) State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar
Highlighted the importance of fair treatment of families of armed forces personnel in matters of reservation and appointments.
The Court recognized that denial without valid reasons can amount to violation of fundamental rights.
(C) Sukhbir Singh v. Union of India
In this case, the Court ruled that benefits, including jobs, promised to the family members of soldiers injured in action are not discretionary but mandatory.
The State must ensure strict compliance with such welfare schemes.
(D) Union of India v. Jagjit Singh
Affirmed that denial of government jobs to eligible dependents of armed forces personnel injured or killed in service amounts to discrimination and breach of State obligations.
The Court ordered corrective measures and directed the authorities to adhere to policies.
Legal Principles Involved
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| State’s Welfare Obligation | State must ensure social and economic welfare of soldier families. |
| Policy Enforcement | Government welfare policies must be implemented without arbitrariness. |
| Equality and Non-discrimination | Denial of benefits to eligible candidates violates Article 14. |
| Reservation for Special Groups | Families of injured soldiers qualify for reservation under Article 16(4). |
| Judicial Oversight | Courts can intervene to ensure policies are followed and rights protected. |
Conclusion
The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s strong reaction serves as a reminder to all government authorities that:
The sacrifices made by soldiers must be honored with due respect and tangible benefits.
Welfare schemes for families of injured or deceased soldiers are not mere policy suggestions but binding commitments.
Denial of jobs or benefits to such families is not only unjust but unconstitutional.
The judiciary will continue to play a proactive role in safeguarding the rights of soldier families, ensuring the State’s welfare obligations are discharged effectively.
RELATED Blog
0 comments