Chandigarh: The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the Union of India challenging the grant of ‘war injury pension’ to an Army personnel who developed rheumatoid arthritis (seropositive) while posted at Kargil during Operation Rakshak, holding that the ministry of defence could not deny pensionary benefits when its policy did not distinguish between operations notified by the govt.A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, while upholding the decisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) and the Punjab and Haryana high court, also directed that while notifying operations under Category E(i) of the MoD policy, Govt must declare in clear terms whether the pensionary benefits contemplated under the policy would apply to such notifications.Narender Kumar, who was enrolled in the Indian Army on Dec 30, 1996, was posted in Kargil from July 13, 2003, to July 6, 2005, when he was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis (seropositive). He was later diagnosed with two other spinal disabilities while posted in West Bengal.The Release Medical Board, while discharging him from service on January 31, 2013, conceded all three disabilities as aggravated by military service at 70% for life, rounded off to 75% for life. Having rendered more than 16 years of service, he was granted disability pension consisting of service element and disability element.Six years after his discharge, he approached the AFT seeking war injury pension under Part II, Category E(i), Para 4.1 of the MoD policy letter dated Jan 31, 2001, contending that the disability was a direct consequence of his posting at Kargil during Operation Rakshak.MoD argued his disability was not covered under Category E(i) of the policy.The AFT, in April 2024, allowed his application, holding that the disease originated in Jan 2005 when he was serving at Kargil and that the entire Jammu and Kashmir area was an operational area. The Punjab and Haryana high court dismissed the ministry’s challenge in Aug 2025.Before the Supreme Court, additional solicitor general Archana Pathak Dave argued the respondent’s claim did not fall under Category E(i). The Centre maintained that Category E(i) would cover only operations specially notified by the govt, such as Operation Sindoor or Operation Snow Leopard, and not ongoing operations such as Operation Rakshak, which covers the entire Jammu and Kashmir, or Operation Rhino, covering the entire Assam.Kumar’s counsel, advocate Ajay Sehoran, submitted that Operation Rakshak at Kargil was an integral part of operations specially notified by the govt under Category E(i). Referring to Army Order 1 of 2003, the counsel argued that battle casualties included casualties occurring while operating on the International Border or Line of Control due to natural calamities and illnesses caused by climatic conditions.Examining the scope of Category E(i), the Supreme Court observed, “Sub-Category E(i) is intended to give flexibility to our defence administration as it is natural that all war-like situations cannot comprehensively commence and conclude within the specified eight Sub-Categories (a) to (h).”The bench added: “Going by the plain language of the policy, once a notification is issued for a specific operation, Category E(i) is invoked, unless there is something indicative either in the Policy or in the notification so issued.”It added, “Except for the oral statement of the Ld. ASG that Operation Rakshak is not intended to be covered under Category E(i), there is no other interpretative aid for us to exclude Operation Rakshak from the scope of Category E(i).”The Bench observed, “If the policymaker interprets its own policy against the plain language or in a manner that could be discriminatory, arbitrary, irrational or goes against the very purpose and object of the policy, the courts will disregard the interpretation offered by the policymaker.”The Supreme Court held that Category E(i) was enabling in nature and that when the language of the policy was unrestrictive, it was not for the court to limit its application through an interpretative process, particularly when the policy concerned grant of pensionary benefits.The bench also observed that the MoD policy letter of 2001 was clear and that when there was no distinction between notifications issued under Category E(i), the benefit of the policy could not be denied.The bench, however, added that “while notifying operations as contemplated under Category E(i), the Government must declare in clear terms whether the pensionary benefits contemplated under Para 4.1, Category E(i) of the MoD Policy letter dated 31.01.2001 would be applicable to such notification or not.”
About The Author
