The Supreme Court has upheld a war injury pension for an ex-soldier whose ailment developed during a posting at Kargil under Operation Rakshak, rejecting the Centre’s view that only specially notified operations qualify.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed the Union government’s appeal against the grant of a war injury pension to an ex-serviceman whose illness arose during his posting at Kargil as part of Operation Rakshak, and urged the Ministry of Defence to issue a comprehensive and clearly identifiable set of rules for such pensions [Union of India and Others v. Narender Kumar].
A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe upheld the orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal and the High Court, which had granted the war injury pension in place of the disability pension the respondent was already receiving.
How the case reached the Supreme Court
The respondent, Narender Kumar, joined the Indian Army in December 1996 and was posted at Kargil from July 2003 to July 2005. In January 2005 he was diagnosed with seropositive rheumatoid arthritis, and he was later diagnosed with two spinal conditions while posted in West Bengal. When he was discharged in January 2013, the Release Medical Board assessed his disabilities as aggravated by military service at 70 per cent, rounded off to 75 per cent for life, and he was granted a disability pension.
About six years later he approached the Armed Forces Tribunal, contending that the arthritis was directly attributable to his Kargil posting under Operation Rakshak. The Tribunal allowed his claim in April 2024, holding that the condition originated during the Kargil posting and that the Ministry’s objection, that the disability did not arise from enemy action or a comparable situation, had no substance. The High Court upheld that decision in August 2025.
The Union’s stand
The Union argued that because the respondent was posted under Operation Rakshak, in operation in Jammu and Kashmir since 1990, he could not claim a war injury pension under Category E(i), Para 4.1 of the Ministry of Defence policy letter dated January 31, 2001. In its view, 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 Jammu and Kashmir, or Operation Rhino in Assam.
What the Court said
The Court held that once an operation is notified under Category E(i), Para 4.1 of the policy, ailments developed by personnel during that operation make them eligible for a war injury pension. It found no basis in the policy to exclude Operation Rakshak:
“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).”
On how pension policies are to be read, it added:
“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. A liberal interpretation is compelling.”
A call for clear rules
The Bench also criticised the uncertainty over which rules, regulations, instructions and policies of the Ministry apply to war injury pensioners:
“We continue to wonder why this uncertainty about applicable rules continues. It is high time that the MoD issues a comprehensive and clearly identifiable subordinate legislation governing the services. This is necessary for fairness in action and also for good governance.”
The Court further suggested that, while notifying operations under Category E(i), the Government must state in clear terms whether the pensionary benefits under Para 4.1 apply to that notification. The appeal was dismissed.
Case Title: Union of India and Others v. Narender Kumar (case number not available)
Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: October 28, 2026
Appearances: Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave with Advocates Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Parmod Kumar Vishnoi and Vijay Awana for the Union; Advocates Mamidipudi Venkatarama Mukunda and Surya Achanta for the respondent