The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed the Union government's appeal and upheld the grant of a war injury pension to a former Army soldier whose illness developed during his posting at Kargil as part of Operation Rakshak. A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe upheld the orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) and the High Court, which had granted ex-soldier Narender Kumar a war injury pension in place of the disability pension he was receiving.
Source: Live Law
Kumar joined the Indian Army in December 1996 and was posted at Kargil from July 2003 to July 2005. During that posting, in January 2005, he was diagnosed with seropositive rheumatoid arthritis, and he was later diagnosed with two spinal conditions while posted in West Bengal. When he was discharged in January 2013, the Release Medical Board assessed his disabilities as aggravated by military service at 70 per cent, rounded off to 75 per cent for life, and he was granted a disability pension.
Why the Centre opposed the pension
About six years after his discharge, Kumar approached the AFT seeking a war injury pension under Category E(i) of Paragraph 4.1 of the Ministry of Defence's policy letter dated January 31, 2001, which covers operations specially notified by the government. The Centre's stand was that Operation Rakshak — running across Jammu and Kashmir since 1990 — is not a specially notified operation under that category, unlike operations such as Operation Sindoor or Operation Snow Leopard, so an illness arising during it could not qualify.
Source: Law Trend
The Supreme Court rejected that reading. It held that when the language of a policy is unrestrictive, courts will not narrow it through interpretation, particularly in pension matters, where a liberal interpretation is called for. Apart from the Additional Solicitor General's oral statement, the Court said, there was no interpretative aid to exclude Operation Rakshak from Category E(i), and a policymaker's interpretation that goes against the plain language of its own policy, or is discriminatory or arbitrary, will be disregarded by the courts.
Court tells MoD to clean up the rules
The bench also recorded its surprise at the continuing uncertainty over which rules, regulations, instructions and policies govern war injury pensions. "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. It further suggested that when the government notifies an operation under Category E(i), it must declare in clear terms whether the pension benefits in the 2001 policy apply to that notification or not.
Source: Live Law
The AFT had allowed Kumar's claim in April 2024, holding that his condition originated during the 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 dismissed the Centre's challenge in August 2025. With the Supreme Court now dismissing the Union's appeal, Kumar keeps the war injury pension, and the ruling strengthens the position of personnel whose disabilities arise during long-running operations that the government has not separately notified by name.
Source: LawChakra
Thousands of soldiers serve for years in long-running operations such as Operation Rakshak in J&K and Operation Rhino in Assam. The Court's ruling says the government cannot deny them war injury pension benefits merely because the operation was never separately 'specially notified', and it pushes the Defence Ministry to publish one clear rulebook instead of case-by-case interpretation.