The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling, classified the death of Naik Inderjeet Singh near the Line of Control (LoC) as a “battle casualty” and not merely a “physical casualty.” The bench, comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih, dismissed the Union of India’s appeal against the Armed Forces Tribunal’s decision granting a Liberalised Family Pension (LFP) to the soldier’s widow, Saroj Devi, and imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the government.
Background of the Case
Naik Inderjeet Singh, who served in the Indian Army, tragically passed away on January 23, 2013, while on patrol duty in extreme climatic conditions near the LoC in Jammu & Kashmir. He was part of an Area Domination Patrol launched as part of Operation Rakshak. During the patrol, Singh complained of breathlessness due to severe weather. Despite immediate efforts to evacuate him, he succumbed to cardiopulmonary arrest.
Initially classified as a “battle casualty,” his death was later reclassified as a “physical casualty,” leading to the denial of a Liberalised Family Pension (LFP) to his widow. This prompted Saroj Devi to approach the Armed Forces Tribunal, which ruled in her favor in 2019. The government challenged this order before the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues
The primary legal question revolved around whether Naik Inderjeet Singh’s death, attributed to extreme climatic conditions during military operations near the LoC, qualified as a “battle casualty” under Category E(f) of the 2001 Ministry of Defence pension rules. The Union argued that his death, classified as a “physical casualty,” did not meet the conditions for LFP, which is reserved for battle casualties.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Judgment
The court examined the circumstances of the soldier’s death and key provisions of the Army Order 1 of 2003. According to the order, deaths caused by natural calamities or illnesses induced by extreme climatic conditions while operating near the LoC are classified as “battle casualties.”
Justice Abhay S. Oka, writing for the bench, emphasized:
“The death can be attributed to illness caused by extreme climatic conditions. The deceased was on duty near the LoC under war-like conditions. His case squarely falls under the category of ‘battle casualties.’”
The court also rejected the government’s reliance on previous cases such as Kanchan Dua v. Union of India and Radhika Devi v. Union of India, noting that the facts in those cases were distinct and not applicable here.
In a sharp rebuke to the Centre, the court observed:
“In a case like this, the respondent ought not to have been dragged to this Court. The decision-making authority ought to have been sympathetic to the widow of a deceased soldier who died in harness.”
Directive and Costs Imposed
The Supreme Court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal’s order directing the government to grant the LFP and an ex-gratia lump sum to Saroj Devi within three months. Additionally, it imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the government, payable within two months, for needlessly litigating against the widow of a soldier.
