Injury, disease caused in operational area no different, can’t deny pension: HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that the Union of India cannot draw a distinction between injury and disease when both are suffered by Army personnel posted in an operational area. The assertion came as a Division Bench held that war injury pension could not be denied once a soldier was invalidated out of service due to disability attributable to military service.

Dismissing a writ petition filed by the Union of India against an order of the Armed Forces Tribunal, the Bench of Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Vikas Suri made it clear that the very nature of posting in a counter-insurgency zone carried inherent risks, and any disability contracted therein must be treated as a war injury.

“Once, the disease/injury suffered by an officer invalidates him/her out of service, the differentiation being created by the petitioner-Union of India between a disease suffered or the injury incurred to deny the benefit of war injury pension cannot be allowed,” the Bench held.

The Court asserted that “Category E(i) of the Government of India letter dated January 31, 2001” made it clear that any operation specially notified by the Government from time to time must be treated as an “operational area”. Jammu and Kashmir, where the respondent was posted under Operation Rakshak, fell squarely within this category.

“It is a conceded position that respondent army man was posted under ‘Operation Rakshak’ in Jammu and Kashmir. Once, the eye disability had been suffered during performance of the duties in the said operational area, the benefit of war injury pension cannot be declined,” the Bench declared.

Upholding the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal granting 50 per cent war injury pension, the High Court asserted: “Once it has been conceded by the petitioners that the disease due to which respondent has been invalidated out of service is attributable to the military service as the same disease was suffered while being posted in the operational area, the benefit of war injury pension has rightly been granted.”

The Court found no perversity in the Tribunal’s order, either on facts or in law, and dismissed the writ petition. “No ground is made out to interfere in the order passed by the Tribunal and the present writ petition is dismissed accordingly,” the Bench concluded.