The Punjab & Haryana High Court has upheld that “war injury” under Category E(i) includes diseases contracted during operational area postings which lead to invalidation from service, and that differentiation between disease and injury for denial of war injury pension is impermissible. This judgment affirms existing interpretation and strengthens benefit protection for armed forces personnel serving in operational zones, serving as binding authority within the court’s jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/20204/2025 of UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs JC 490061K EX NAIB SUB RAJ KUMAR AND ANOTHER |
| CNR | PHHC011022692025 |
| Date of Registration | 17-07-2025 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI (concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Division Bench: MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI |
| Precedent Value | Binding within High Court of Punjab and Haryana jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Service/Defence Law — War Injury Pension |
| Questions of Law | Whether “war injury” pension under Category E(i) extends to diseases invalidating personnel during active operational postings, and whether distinction can be drawn between injury and disease in such cases. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that for the purpose of war injury pension under Category E(i), there is no legitimate distinction between injury and disease so long as either occurs during posting in an operational area and leads to invalidation from service. Once it is conceded that the disease causing invalidation is attributable to military service during operational area duty, benefit of war injury pension cannot be denied. The Court thus affirmed the Tribunal’s conclusion that diseases suffered on operational duty warrant the same pensionary benefit as physical injuries. The challenge to grant of such benefit, on the ground that the invalidation was due to disease (Interstital Keratitis) rather than injury, was rejected. The impugned Tribunal order was found not to be perverse in fact or law. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Letter dated 31.01.2001 (Category E(i)); No other judicial precedents specifically cited |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Interpretation of Category E(i) as per government notification and prevailing administrative rules for war injury pension |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Respondent was posted in Counter Insurgency Area under “Operation Rakshak” in J&K; suffered eye disease, Interstital Keratitis, leading to invalidation from service; Tribunal granted war injury pension at 50%; petitioners challenged, arguing the disease did not amount to “injury” under pension rules. |
| Citations | None specified |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | High Court of Punjab and Haryana and all subordinate courts within its jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Armed Forces Tribunal, and potentially Supreme Court |
| Overrules | None |
| Distinguishes | None |
| Follows | Category E(i) of letter dated 31.01.2001 (Government Notification/Order) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reasserts that “war injury” for pension purposes covers both physical injuries and diseases contracted during operational area duty if they cause invalidation.
- Explicitly bars denial of war injury pension based on a distinction between injury (“injuries”) and disease, where disease is attributable to operational area service.
- Confirms that injury or disease suffered in the notified operational area (“Operation Rakshak” here) and causing invalidation must be compensated equally by the war injury pension.
- Lawyers representing defence personnel should rely on this to counter exclusions based purely on the characterization (injury vs. disease) of the disabling condition.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court began by noting the petitioners’ concession that any injury suffered while on operational area posting qualifies as “war injury.”
- The key interpretative issue was whether disease, leading to invalidation, is covered under “injury.”
- The Court read Category E(i) of the government order dated 31.01.2001 to include both injury and disease where attributable to, and suffered during, operational area service.
- The Court found that the attempt to draw a distinction between “disease” and “injury” for purposes of war injury pension is not tenable.
- Since the disease (Interstital Keratitis) led to invalidation and was suffered during operational duty in J&K under “Operation Rakshak,” the entitlement to war injury pension was proper.
- The order of the Armed Forces Tribunal granting war injury pension at 50% was found consistent in law and fact; no ground for interference was made out.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Argued that although the respondent was posted in an operational area, the medical condition (Interstital Keratitis — an eye disease) was not a normal “injury” suffered during operations, and so should not qualify for war injury pension.
Respondent
- The respondent’s direct arguments are not recorded, but it is noted that Tribunal granted pension based on service in operational area and invalidation due to service-connected disease.
Factual Background
Respondent No.1, an ex-army Naib Subedar, was posted under “Operation Rakshak” in the Counter Insurgency Area of Jammu & Kashmir, a recognized operational zone. While there, he developed Interstital Keratitis, an eye disease, leading to his invalidation from service. The Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, granted him war injury pension at 50%. The Union of India challenged this decision, arguing that the pension should not apply because his condition was a disease, not an “injury,” as envisaged under the pension rules.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court interpreted Category E(i) of the Government of India letter dated 31.01.2001 regarding war injury pension.
- The Court held that the wording of Category E(i) and relevant rules do not justify a distinction between disease and injury where both are attributable to operational area service and lead to invalidation.
- No other statutory or constitutional provisions were discussed or interpreted.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
Both judges (MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI and MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI) delivered a concurring (unanimous) oral judgment; there is no dissent.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing interpretation of war injury pension rules is affirmed and clarified.
Citations
- No SCC, AIR, MANU or neutral citations provided in the judgment.
- Specific reliance on Government of India letter dated 31.01.2001 (Category E(i)).
- Judgment marked as “whether reportable: No.”