The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that a soldier shot by a fellow soldier during a military operation qualifies for ‘Killed in Action’ benefits, upholding liberalised family pension rights.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
CHANDIGARH: In a landmark judgment reinforcing the dignity of military service and the rights of soldiers’ families, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a soldier who dies while deployed in a military operation, even if killed by a fellow soldier, is entitled to the same benefits as those “killed in action”.
Background of the Case
The case arose from the tragic death of an Indian Army soldier, son of Respondent Rukmani Devi, who was deployed under Operation Rakshak in Jammu & Kashmir in 1991. He died due to a gunshot fired by a fellow soldier, not the enemy. The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) had previously directed that his death be considered a “battle casualty”, entitling the family to a liberalised family pension.
The Union of India challenged this before the High Court, arguing the circumstances were different from standard battlefield deaths and that there was an unreasonable delay in the filing of the pension claim.
High Court’s Observation
A division bench comprising Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Deepak Manchanda upheld the AFT’s decision, noting:
- The soldier was on duty in a notified military operation, Operation Rakshak, at the time of death.
- As per Ministry of Defence guidelines (2001), all casualties during notified operations are to be treated under Category E (war-like situations), which covers even incidents like friendly fire.
- A soldier’s death due to gunfire from a colleague during such operations qualifies as a battle casualty.
The Court remarked:
“A soldier deployed in a military operation, being shot by a fellow soldier, cannot be in any manner denied the benefits which would be applicable to those killed in action.”
The Court dismissed the Union’s argument on delay, stating that a pension is a continuing cause of action, citing the Supreme Court judgment in M.L. Patil v. State of Goa (2023) 1 SCC 660, which emphasized that pension arrears cannot be denied on grounds of procedural delay.
This judgment highlights that operational duty encompasses a wide range of risks, including internal mishaps such as friendly fire, and not just enemy engagement. The Court affirmed that a liberalized family pension is applicable even when a soldier’s death is not caused by enemy action, as long as it occurs during a notified military operation. Additionally, the court ruled that a delay in filing pension claims does not invalidate entitlement, since a pension constitutes a recurring and continuous legal right.
Case Title: Union of India v. Rukmani Devi
CWP-19703-2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Click Here to Read More Reports On Military Operations
