The Supreme Court has upheld the grant of War Injury Pension to a former Army soldier who developed Rheumatoid Arthritis while posted at Kargil under Operation Rakshak. It rejected the Centre’s argument that Operation Rakshak is not a “specially notified” operation under the Ministry of Defence’s pension policy.
A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe dismissed the Union of India’s appeal against the concurrent findings of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) and the High Court. The Court held that when a policy’s language is unrestrictive, courts will not narrow it through interpretation, particularly in pension matters.
Background
The respondent, Narender Kumar, enrolled in the Indian Army on December 30, 1996, and was posted at Kargil from July 13, 2003 to July 6, 2005, where he was diagnosed with Rheumatoid Arthritis (Seropositive). He was later diagnosed with two spinal conditions while posted in West Bengal.
When he was discharged on his own application on January 31, 2013, the Release Medical Board found all three disabilities aggravated by military service at 70% for life, rounded off to 75%. He was granted Disability Pension.
About six years later, he approached the AFT seeking War Injury Pension under Part II, Category E(i), Para 4.1 of the MoD Policy Letter dated January 31, 2001, which covers “Operations specially notified by the Govt. from time to time”. The AFT allowed his application on April 8, 2024, holding that the entire J&K area is an operational area. The High Court dismissed the Centre’s challenge on August 11, 2025.
Arguments
Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave, appearing for the Union, argued that Category E(i) covers only specially notified operations such as Operation Sindoor or Operation Snow Leopard, and not ongoing operations like Operation Rakshak, which covers the whole of J&K. She submitted that a wider reading would make the other clauses of Category E redundant and entitle every soldier posted in J&K to War Injury Pension. She also relied on Para 44 of Army Order 01 of 2003.
Counsel for the respondent argued that Operation Rakshak is a specially notified operation under Category E(i), and that Appendix ‘A’ of the same Army Order treats illness caused by climatic conditions on the Line of Control as a battle casualty.
Court’s Findings
The Court explained that sub-categories (a) to (h) of Category E cover situations akin to war or extreme violence. Sub-category (i), it said, gives the Government flexibility to notify further operations, and once an operation is notified, Category E(i) applies unless the policy or the notification indicates otherwise. It observed: “Except for the oral statement of the Ld. ASG that Operation Rakshak is not intended to be covered under Category E(i), there is no other interpretative aid for us to exclude Operation Rakshak from the scope of Category E(i).”
Although framing and applying policy lies with the Defence Administration, the Court said the policymaker carries the primary burden of showing when a benefit does or does not accrue. Courts will disregard the policymaker’s interpretation if it goes against the plain language or is arbitrary, discriminatory or irrational. It held that courts will simply declare “What a policy says, it is and not what is in the imagination of the policymaker.”
The Bench added that “When the language of the Policy is unrestrictive, it is not the burden of the Court to limit its application through an interpretative process, particularly when the policy relates to grant of pensionary benefits.” It declined to rely on Army Order 01 of 2003, finding that it caused more confusion than clarity.
Remarking on the continuing uncertainty over which MoD rules apply, the Court said: “It is high time that the MoD issues a comprehensive and clearly identifiable subordinate legislation governing the services.”
Outcome
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It directed that, when notifying operations under Category E(i) in future, the Government must state clearly whether the pensionary benefits under Para 4.1 will apply to such notifications.
Case Title: Union of India & Ors. v. Narender Kumar
Case No.: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Diary No. 27220 of 2026
Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
Date: October 28, 2026
