The Supreme Court of India has dismissed the Union government's appeal against the grant of War Injury Pension to an Army veteran who developed rheumatoid arthritis while serving at Kargil during Operation Rakshak. The Court held that the Ministry of Defence could not deny pensionary benefits by adopting a restrictive interpretation of its policy when the relevant provisions contained no such exclusion.
Background
The case arose from the service of Narender Kumar, who joined the Indian Army on December 30, 1996. During his posting at Kargil between July 2003 and July 2005, he was diagnosed with seropositive rheumatoid arthritis. He was subsequently diagnosed with two spinal conditions while posted in West Bengal.
When he was discharged from service on January 31, 2013, the Release Medical Board assessed his disabilities at 70%, rounded off to 75% for life. He was granted Disability Pension comprising the service element and disability element.
Kumar later approached the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), seeking War Injury Pension under Category E(i), Paragraph 4.1 of the Ministry of Defence policy dated January 31, 2001. The AFT allowed his application on April 8, 2024, holding that his rheumatoid arthritis originated during his posting at Kargil. The High Court subsequently dismissed the Ministry's challenge on August 11, 2025.
The Union government then approached the Supreme Court, arguing that Operation Rakshak was not a specially notified operation eligible for War Injury Pension under the relevant provision.
A Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe examined the scope of Category E(i), which covers operations specially notified by the government from time to time.
The Court observed that the provision gives the government flexibility to extend pensionary benefits to additional operations. It found no clear provision excluding Operation Rakshak from its scope and emphasised that the policy's language could not be restricted without a valid basis.
The Court stated:
"While interpreting the plain language of the policy, Courts will simply declare, What a policy says, it is and not what is in the imagination of the policymaker."
The Bench also stressed that defence policies must clearly specify when pensionary benefits apply. Where a policy's language is unrestricted, courts should not narrow its application through interpretation, particularly when pensionary benefits are involved.
The Court concluded that there was no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the AFT and the High Court. However, it directed the government to clarify the applicability of pensionary benefits whenever it notifies operations under Category E(i).
The judgment stated:
"while notifying operations as contemplated under Category E(i), the Government must declare in clear terms whether the pensionary benefits contemplated under Para 4.1, Category E(i) of the MoD Policy letter dated 31.01.2001 would be applicable to such notification or not."
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the Union government's appeal against the High Court's judgment dated August 11, 2025.
Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.
