123 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 06.04.2026 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ........Petitioners VERSUS VINOD KUMAR AND ANOTHER ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. Ravi Sodhi, Senior Panel Counsel with Mr. Arshad Ali, Central Government Counsel for the petitioners-Union of India.

***

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 05.04.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2 – Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal), by which, benefit of War Injury pension @ 20% to be rounded off to 50% w.e.f. 01.01.2023 has been granted in favour of respondent No.1.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, the grant of benefit of war injury pension to respondent No.1 is not covered as though, the officer received the injury “MEDIAL MINISCUS TEAR WITH GD-IV OSTEOCHONDRAL DFFECT MEDIAL FEMORAL CONDYLE (LT) KNEE (OPTD)” in Operation Rakshak, but it was received due to an ambush in said area hence, the same cannot be treated as battle causality/injury so as to grant him the benefit of War Injury Pension. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argues that even though the injury suffered by the respondent No. 1 has been 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 hold that though the injuries of “MEDIAL MINISCUS TEAR WITH GD-IV OSTEOCHONDRAL DFFECT MEDIAL FEMORAL CONDYLE (LT) KNEE (OPTD) and “MEDIAL FEMORAL CONDYLE OSTEOCHONDRAL DEFECT GD-IV (RT) KNEE (OPTD)” have been found to be existing in respondent No.1 and the said disabilities have as assessed by the Medical Board @ 36% (composite) for life were held to be attributable to the military service and hence, though the grant of benefit of disability pension along with the benefit of rounding off 50% as against 20%to respondent No. 1 by placing reliance upon the judgment of Tribunal in Union of India and others vs. Ram Avtar, 2014 SCC Online SC 1761 , is correct but qua the grant of benefit of War Injury Pension by placing reliance upon the Army Order 5/2020, the case of the appellant is covered under Para 1 (ab) of Appendix “A”, is arbitrary and illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that even the benefit of rounding off of War Injury Pension has been wrongly granted to respondent No. 1.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the case file with their 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 “MEDIAL MINISCUS TEAR WITH GD- IV OSTEOCHONDRAL DFFECT MEDIAL FEMORAL CONDYLE (LT) KNEE (OPTD)” and “MEDIAL FEMORAL CONDYLE OSTEOCHONDRAL DEFECT GD-IV (RT) KNEE (OPTD)” leading to the disability to the extent of 36% (Composite) have admittedly been received by the respondent No.1 while crossing the Nala near the International Boarder during Operation Rakshak, hence, the injury suffered by respondent No. 1 is 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 to treat the same as non-