IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : February 26, 2026 Union of India and others .. Petitioners Versus NK Avtar Singh and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present: Mr. Harkirat Singh Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioners.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 31.10.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2 – Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal), by which, the respondent is held entitled to the grant of War Injury Pension @ 30% instead of normal disability pension.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the grant of benefit of war injury pension by the Tribunal is not covered as, the officer though received the injury during continuance of Operation Rakshak, but it was received due to a vehicular accident hence, the same cannot be treated as battle causality/injury. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argues that under any circumstances, even if the injury suffered by the respondent No. 1 is treated to be attributable to the military service, the benefit of war injury pension cannot be granted to the respondent No. 1 as, the grant of the said benefit is contrary to the instructions, which have been issued by the Government of India, circulated vide letter dated 31.01.2001.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon the report of medical examination of the respondent No. 1 to contend that though the injury of Prolapse Disc L 4-5 (OPTD) OLD v-67 has been found to be existing in respondent No.1, but the said disability as assessed by the Medical Board @ 30% for life was held to be attributable to the military service and hence, the grant of benefit of War Injury Pension to respondent No. 1 by placing reliance upon the category E(i) of the notification issued by Government of India circulated vide letter dated

31.01.2001 is arbitrary and illegal.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the case file with his able assistance.

5. It is a conceded fact that the Operation Rakshak in the State of Jammu and Kashmir was specifically notified by the Government of India as an operation. The injury namely Prolapse Disc L 4-5 (OPTD) OLD v-67 leading to the disability to the extent of 30% has admittedly been received by the respondent No.1 in a vehicular accident during Operation Rakshak, hence, the injury suffered by respondent No. 1 has not only been treated to be attributable to the military service but also, the same was assessed to have occurred while performing the bonafide military duty that too during the time when operation rakshak was going on. Once, the said fact has been conceded, it cannot be said that the injury suffered by respondent No.1 did not happen while performing the duties in an operational area so as treat are same as non-attributable to military service, which operation Rakshak has been ordered to be carried out by the Government of India.

6. Hence keeping in view these facts, coupled with the instructions dated 31.01.2001 which have been issued by the Government of India, the injury suffered by respondent No.1 is to be treated under category E(i), which is reproduced as under:-

“Category – ‘E’

(a) enemy action in international war.

(b) action during deployment with a peace keeping mission abroad.

(c) border skirmishes.

d) during laying or clearance of mines including enemy mines as also minesweeping operations.

(e) on account of accidental explosions of mine while laying operationally oriented mine-field or lifting or negotiating minefield laid by the enemy or own forces in operational areas near international borders or the line of control.

(f) War like situations, including cases which are attributable to/aggravated by:-

(i) extremists acts, exploding mines etc, while on way to an operational area (ii) battle ino