The Supreme Court on Wednesday (October 28) has upheld the grant of a War Injury pension to ex-armed forces personnel for the ailment which developed owing to his posting at Kargil as part of Operation Rakshak.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe dismissed the Union government's appeal against the High Court's and Armed Forces Tribunal's order which granted a War Injury pension to the ex-personnel in place of the disability pension.

At the same time, the Court also suggested that the government issue a comprehensive and clearly identifiable subordinate legislation governing the services of ex-personnel who became eligible for a War Injury Pension, noting that there is uncertainty about which Rules, Regulations, Instructions and Policies of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) are applicable.

“We continue to wonder why this uncertainty about applicable rules continues. It is high time that the MoD issues a comprehensive and clearly identifiable subordinate legislation governing the services. This is necessary for fairness in action and also for good governance.”, the Court said.

Background

The respondent Narender Kumar joined the Indian Army in December 1996 and was posted at Kargil from July 2003 to July 2005. During this posting, he was diagnosed with seropositive rheumatoid arthritis in January 2005. He was subsequently diagnosed with two spinal conditions while posted in West Bengal.

When he was discharged from service in January 2013, the Release Medical Board assessed his disabilities as aggravated by military service at 70%, rounded off to 75% for life. He was granted disability pension comprising service and disability elements.

Around six years later, Kumar approached the AFT seeking War Injury Pension for rheumatoid arthritis, contending that the condition was directly attributable to his posting at Kargil under Operation Rakshak.

The AFT allowed his claim in April 2024, holding that the condition originated during his Kargil posting and that the Ministry's objection that the disability did not arise from enemy action or a comparable situation had no substance. The High Court upheld the decision in August 2025.

Union's appeal

The Union Government's consistent stand was that since the Respondent-personnel was posted as part of the Operation Rakshak in Jammu & Kashmir area (being in operation since 1990), the benefit of a War Injury Pension under Category E(i), Para 4.1 of MoD Policy Letter dated 31.01.2001, could not have been availed by the Respondent as the Operation Rakshak is not a specially notified operation under Para 4.1, Category E(i) and therefore, respondent's Rheumatoid Arthritis (Seropositive) cannot qualify as War Injury Pension.

In essence, it was the stand of the Union that Category E(i) would cover only those operations, specially notified by the Government, such as Operation Sindoor or Operation Snow Leopard etc., and not ongoing operations like Operation Rakshak (covering entire J & K) or Operation Rhino (covering entire Assam).

Rejecting the Union's stand, the Supreme Court observed that once an operation is being notified under Category E(i), Para 4.1 of MoD Policy, the ailments developed by the personnel during the course of the operation would make him eligible to claim the War Injury Pension.

“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 Court observed, pointing out that “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.”

“When the language of the Policy is unrestrictive, it is not the burden of the Court to limit its application through an interpretative process, particularly when the policy relates to grant of pensionary benefits. A liberal interpretation is compelling, and this Court has adopted such an approach while interpreting such policies.”, the Court added.

The Court also suggested to the Union 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.”

As a result, the appeal was dismissed.

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Mr. Parmod Kumar Vishnoi, Adv. Mr. Vijay Awana, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Mamidipudi Venkatarama Mukunda- 4332, AOR Mr. Surya Achanta, Adv.