The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to war injury pension and related benefits as per the provisions of the circular dated 31st January, 2001, for injuries suffered in operational areas.

Gita Mittal, J.

1. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 30th June, 2010 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal rejecting the petitioner’s challenge to the action of the respondents in treating the injuries suffered by the petitioner as physical casualty instead of battle casualty in an operational area which had caused 100% disability to the petitioner.

2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are briefly noted hereafter. The petitioner was enrolled on 24th December, 1980 in the Indian Army in the Corps of EME as Vehicle Mechanic. It is not disputed that the petitioner served various units of the Army with dedication and devotion to duty between 1981 to 1986 and has an exemplary service record. The petitioner was also promoted from time to time till he reached the rank of Havildar. With effect from 5th June, 1994 the petitioner was posted to 10, Rashtriya Rifles Battalion (Rajput) (hereinafter referred to as 10 RR Bn.) which was then deployed in the State of Jammu & Kashmir.

3. We are also informed that operation Rakshak-III (so notified by the Central Government) was in progress during which counter insurgency operations were carried out against active militant activities in area.

4. On 30th October, 1996, the petitioner was given the task by his Commanding Officer to go to Udhampur from Doda after taking adequate security protection as certain local repair work of equipments and machinery was required. While returning after completion of the work, the vehicle which the petitioner was driving met with an accident and fell into a deep ditch causing severe injuries to the petitioner. The petitioner was immediately evacuated to the Command Hospital (Northern Command) Udhampur in an unconscious state and was later transferred to Command Hospital (Western Command), Chandimandir wherein he remained under treatment for more than 7 months and 10 days (between June, 1996 to February, 1997). As a result of the severe injuries, the petitioner was completely paralyzed from both his legs.

5. The respondents conducted a Court of Inquiry to ascertain the reasons of the accident. The petitioner denies presence in the Court of Inquiry. There is dispute as to whether the petitioner had actually made statement which has been attributed to him and the petitioner denies his signatures on the statement. However, the petitioner has also challenged the findings of the Court of Inquiry contending that the same was arbitrarily concluded finding the petitioner blameworthy in the said accident.

6. Finally, on account of his medical condition of permanent paralysis and his being confined to the bed, on the night of June 1997 the petitioner was invalidated out of service with 100% disability. The disability of the petitioner was duly evaluated by the Invalidating Medical Board. The respondents however failed to treat the petitioner’s injury as a battle casualty even though the accident had occurred in an operational area so notified by the Central Government. The petitioner was aggrieved by the action

of the respondents in treating the petitioner’s injury as a physical casualty. The same impacts the financial benefits to which he was entitled due to injury having been suffered in an operational area.

7. In this regard the petitioner sent communication dated 24th July, 2000 to the respondents. It was only in the response dated 19th August, 2000 from the 10th, RR Battalion, the respondents first made mention of the Court of Inquiry proceedings.

8. In the meantime, the petitioner made a request dated 19th August, 2000 for the copy of the Court of Inquiry.

9. The petitioner has also submitted that an impression was given to him that his case for grant of war injury pension in terms of para 10 of the Government of India letter dated 31st January, 2001 [No.1(2)/97/I/D (Pen-C)] was under examination inasmuch as by communication dated 28th January, 2002, the petitioner’s pension stood enhanced from Rs.450/- to Rs.1500/-. Despite repeated repr