Introduction:

In the significant case titled Union of India and Others v. Ex. Sep. B Rama Krishna and Another, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) granting war injury pension to a soldier who sustained a grievous injury while participating in logistical duties during ‘Operation Rakshak’, a government-notified military operation aimed at combating insurgency and terrorism in Jammu & Kashmir since 1990. The Union of India challenged the AFT’s ruling, arguing that the injury sustained by the soldier during the collection of kerosene oil did not fall within the ambit of ‘war injury’ as per the prescribed classification under the Ministry of Defence’s policy dated January 31, 2001. However, a Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta found the appeal devoid of merit and reaffirmed that soldiers involved in support roles under ongoing military operations are entitled to war injury benefits when injuries are sustained in the line of duty.

Arguments by the Petitioners (Union of India):

The primary contention raised by the Union of India, represented by Government Advocate Mr. Akash Vashisth, was that the Armed Forces Tribunal had erroneously granted war injury pension to Ex-Sepoy B. Rama Krishna, despite the fact that his injury was sustained in what the petitioners described as a routine or ordinary accident. The Union submitted that the respondent had suffered a C5 burst fracture with traumatic quadriplegia (OPTD) while he was part of a working party collecting kerosene oil. It was argued that such an activity, being neither combat nor a direct operational engagement, could not be classified as a “war injury” under Category E, sub-clause (i) of the Government’s letter dated 31.01.2001, which governs entitlements to war injury pensions.

The Government maintained that Category E deals specifically with operations notified by the government from time to time, and that the phrase “war injury” must be construed strictly. According to their interpretation, unless the injury occurred in an active battle scenario or direct confrontation with hostiles, the claim would not qualify. Furthermore, it was asserted that the AFT had failed to apply the narrow interpretation intended by the drafters of the 2001 pension policy. The petitioners sought the High Court’s intervention to reverse the AFT’s findings, arguing that expanding the scope of “war injury” would lead to unwarranted financial liabilities on the government exchequer and set a precedent that blurred the distinction between operational risk and routine logistics.

Arguments by the Respondents (Ex-Sep. B Rama Krishna):

In response, the counsel representing the injured soldier relied heavily on the admitted fact that ‘Operation Rakshak’ was an ongoing, government-notified counterinsurgency operation at the time of the incident. The respondent had been detailed as part of a working party to collect kerosene oil, a necessary logistical support item for sustaining operations in difficult terrain. The party was proceeding in an official military vehicle (a gypsy) when the vehicle met with an accident, leading to a C5 burst fracture and resultant quadriplegia for the respondent. It was emphasized that the soldier had not been acting in a personal capacity, but had been performing a duty assigned under the aegis of Operation Rakshak.

The respondent’s counsel argued that under the letter dated 31.01.2001, Category E included not only direct combat injuries but also those incurred during activities integral to military operations notified by the Government. Support services such as logistics, supply runs, and movement in hostile environments formed the backbone of such operations and placed personnel at equivalent operational risk. The distinction between combat and support roles was artificial in scenarios involving ongoing insurgency. The respondents also stressed that the soldier’s injuries had caused permanent disability and therefore squarely qualified for war injury pension benefits as per the rules. The AFT had correctly recognized these facts and the policy’s intent to support soldiers injured in service under hazardous conditions.

Judgment of the Court:

Upon considering the submissions, the Punjab and Haryana High Court began its analysis by interpreting the scope of Category E under the Ministry of Defence’s policy letter dated 31.01.2001. The Court found that this category pertained to death or disability arising due to “operations specially notified by the Government from time to time.” The Court noted that it was an admitted fact that the respondent’s injury occurred in an area and at a time when Operation Rakshak had been officially notified. Further, the accident occurred while the respondent was performing duties directly linked to the operation — specifically, the collection of kerosene oil, which was essential for maintaining camp logistics during cold weather conditions in hostile terrain.

Speaking for the bench, Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma clarified that the collection of kerosene oil, although not combat in nature, was assigned by the Army and was directly linked to the operation’s support mechanisms. He emphasized that a soldier engaged in any form of duty under a notified military operation must be considered to be operating within the zone of operational risk. Hence, any injury sustained under such duty, particularly when it results in permanent disability or death, must be construed as arising out of the notified operation.

The bench categorically rejected the Union’s attempt to narrowly interpret the term “war injury” and held that an overly literal interpretation would defeat the very purpose of such welfare provisions. The Court pointed out that logistics and support personnel face real-time operational hazards, particularly in insurgency-affected zones, and their roles are not secondary to combat troops. The fact that the injury did not occur during gunfire or hostile exchange was deemed immaterial. The Court ruled that the soldier was executing a government-assigned duty in furtherance of Operation Rakshak and thus squarely qualified under Category E.

Additionally, the Court remarked that there was no perversity in the AFT’s decision and that the Tribunal had rightly appreciated the facts and applied the governing policy. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the Union Government’s writ petition and upheld the AFT’s order directing that Ex-Sep. B. Rama Krishna be granted war injury pension with effect from 21.09.2012 for life, along with all attendant allowances applicable to his condition.

The ruling is a reaffirmation of the judiciary’s pro-soldier stance and underscores the need for a broad, humanitarian interpretation of military welfare policies. The Court reiterated that the nature of duty, the context in which it was performed, and the operational setting are critical in determining entitlements, and that a rigid, formulaic application of policy could potentially lead to unjust outcomes for injured or disabled veterans.