No difference between ‘injury’, ‘disease’ in operational area, war injury pension can’t be denied: 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.

Broader ruling on operational areas

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.

Union of India’s stand rejected

The Centre had argued that the respondent was posted in a counter-insurgency area, but the disability suffered Interstitial Keratitis –– a condition affecting the eyes —could not be equated to an “injury” sustained while conducting operations.

Rejecting the stand, the Court asserted that the counsel for the Union conceded that “any injury suffered by army personnel while he/she is posted in the operational area is to be treated as war injury.” The real issue, the Bench observed, was whether a disease contracted during such posting could be excluded from the definition of war injury.

“The question which surfaces is whether any disease also suffered during the operation which leads to the

invalidation of army personnel is to be treated as an injury suffered or not,” the Bench observed.

The Bench added the nature of invalidation —whether due to an “injury” or a “disease” — was irrelevant if the posting was in an operational area.

Tribunal’s order upheld

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 to respondent by the Tribunal.”

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.

Why the ruling matters

The ruling shuts the door on the Union’s attempt to deny war injury pension by drawing a distinction between “injury” and “disease”. By holding that “any disability suffered in an operational area amounts to war injury”, the High Court has expanded protection for soldiers and reinforced that the “risk of invalidation in such zones is inseparable from service itself”.