UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. NARENDER KUMAR

2026 INSC 1166 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. OF 2026 @SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) DIARY NO. 27220 OF 2026

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...APPELLANT (S)

VERSUS

NARENDER KUMAR …RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. In this Civil Appeal, Union of India through Ministry of Defence

(MoD), challenges the concurrent findings of the Armed Forces

Tribunal (AFT)1 and the High Court 2 granting War Injury Pension to the

respondent in place of Disability Pension already granted to him for the

ailment ‘Rheumatoid Arthritis’ which developed owing to his posting at

Kargil as part of Operation Rakshak.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2026.10.28 16:36:51 IST Reason:

3. Facts, to the extent that they are relevant for disposal of this

appeal, are that the respondent was enrolled in the Indian Army on

30.12.1996. While being posted at Kargil w.e.f. 13.07.2003 to

06.07.2005, he was diagnosed with ‘Rheumatoid Arthritis

(Seropositive)’. Thereafter, he was also diagnosed with ‘PIVD L4/5,

L5/S1’ and ‘PIVD C5/C6 (Operated)’ while being posted at West

Bengal. The respondent applied for discharge and while discharging

him from service on 31.01.2013, the Release Medical Board conceded

to all the three disabilities of the respondent as aggravated by military

service @70% for life rounded off to 75% for life. Having rendered

more than 16 years of service, the respondent was granted Disability

Pension consisting of Service Element and Disability Element.

4. Discharged in 2013, and having continued to regularly receive

pensionary benefits with Service Element as well as Disability

Element, it is after about 6 years that the respondent approached the

AFT seeking grant of War Injury Pension under Part II, Category E(i),

Para 4.1 of MoD Policy Letter (“Category E(i), Para 4.1 of MoD Policy

Letter”) dated 31.01.2001, instead of Disability pension for Rheumatoid

Arthritis (Seropositive), on the ground that this disablement is a direct

consequence of his posting at Kargil between 2003 to 2005.

5. The Ministry of Defence (MoD), opposed the original application

on various grounds, principally on the ground that the respondent was 2

not entitled to War Injury Pension as his disability was not covered

under Category E(i), Para 4.1 of MoD Policy Letter dated 31.01.2001.

It was also argued that while rounding off benefit was not admissible

with effect from 01.02.2013, respondent could claim the benefit of

rounding off benefits @75% disability with effect from 01.01.2016.

6. By its order dated 08.04.2024, the AFT allowed the original

application holding that; (a) Rheumatoid Arthritis (Seropositive) has

originated in January, 2005 when the respondent served at Kargil

(J&K) 14F RAJ RIF, (b) the entire J&K area is an operational area and

therefore the stand of MoD that the disability was not caused due to

enemy action in an international war, peace keeping mission,

violence/attack by terrorist, border skirmishes etc. has no substance,

and that (c) the respondent made out a clear case for grant of War

Injury Element under Category E(i), Para 4.1 of MoD Policy Letter

dated 31.01.2001.

7. Ministry of Defence’s challenge to the decision of AFT was

dismissed by the High Court on the ground that the opinion of the

Release Medical Board proves that Rheumatoid Arthritis

(Seropositive) originated when the respondent was actually posted at

Kargil between 2003 to 2005.

8. Learned Additional Solicitor General Ms. Archana Pathak Dave,

emphatically argued that respondent’s belated claim for the War Injury

Pension does not fall under Category E(i), Para 4.1 of MoD Policy

Letter. This is the short point for consideration and the answer to the

question depends upon what the MoD Policy Letter dated 31.01.2001

states.

9. As usual, there is uncertainty about which Rules, Regulations,

Instructions and Policies of Ministry of Defence (MoD) are applicable.

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.

10. To start with, we may indicate that Para 4.1 of Part II of the MoD

Policy Letter dated 31.01.2001 is now also a part of the Pension

Regulations for Army, 2008. Chapter-IV of the Pension Regulations

deals with “Casualty Pensionary Awards when cause of Invalidment

from Service or Death is either Attributable to or Aggravated by Military

Service”. Regulation 82 of these Pension Regulations provides for

declaration of pensionary benefits on death and disability which is

attributable to or aggravated by Military Service under different

circumstances. The said Regulation formulates five categories, being

categories ‘A’ to ‘E’, of which Category ‘E’ deals with pensionary

benefit in cases of death and disability arising out of nine

circumstances which are in the nature of an actual war or a war-like

situation. These are more or less in consonance with the MoD Policy

Letter dated 31.01.2001. However, learned ASG as well as the counsel

for the respondent have continued to refer and rely on the MoD Policy

Letter dated 31.01.2001, hence, we will also adopt the same method

to examine the legality of the claim of War Injury Pension, i.e. by

referring to the MoD Policy Letter.

11. Part II of the Policy Letter deals with “Pensionary Benefits on

Death/Disability in Attributable/Aggravated Cases”. Under this Part,

there are five categories. Category ‘A’ deals with death and disability

due to natural causes neither attributable to nor aggravated by military

service. Category ‘B’ deals with cases where disease is attributable to

or aggravated by service conditions entitled to a disability pension.

Category ‘C’ deals with cases where death or disability occurs due to

accidents in the performance of duties, for which disability pension is

admissible. Category ‘D’ deals with cases where death or disability

occurs due to acts of violence, attack by terrorists, antisocial elements,

etc., whether on duty or not. Category ‘E’, with which we are

concerned, deals with death or disability arising out of nine

circumstances. To examine this issue in detail, it is necessary to

reproduce Category ‘E’ as well as its sub-categories for ready

reference:-

“Category E: Death or disability arising as a result of –

(a) enemy action in international war.

(b) action during deployment with a peace keeping mission abroad. (c) border skirmishes. (d) during laying or clearance of mines including enemy mines as also minesweeping operations. (e) On account of accidental explosions of mines while laying operationally oriented mine-field or lifting or negotiating mine-field laid by the enemy or own forces in operational areas near international borders or the line of control. (f) war like situations, including cases which are attributable to/aggravated by:- (i) extremist acts, exploding mines etc., while on way to an operational area (ii) battle inoculation training exercises or demonstration with live ammunition. (iii) kit mapping by extremists while on operational duty. (iv) Flying operations in normal or (illegible) of war plans and implementation of operations. (v) (illegible) (g) An Act of violence by extremists, anti social elements etc while on operational duty. (h) Action against extremists, antisocial elements etc death/disability while employed in the aid of civil power in quelling agitation riots or revolt by demonstrators will be covered under this category. (i) Operations specially notified by the Govt. from time to time.”

12. The contentious issue is about the scope and ambit of sub-

category E(i) relating to “Operations specially notified by the

Government from time to time”. While it has been the consistent stand

of the respondent that posting at Kargil is based on operations

specially notified by the Government i.e. ‘Operation Rakshak’ and that

the disability occurred during posting at Kargil, MoD insists that

‘Operation Rakshak’ is not a specially notified operation under Para

4.1, Category E(i) and therefore, respondent’s Rheumatoid Arthritis

(Seropositive) cannot qualify as War Injury Pension.

13. Reiterating the same stand, Ld. ASG submitted before us that if

such an interpretation is adopted, it will have the serious consequence

of ‘rendering other clauses in Category E otiose’ and also that every

army personnel posted in Jammu and Kashmir under Operation

Rakshak, would be entitled to War Injury Pension. It is the stand of

MoD that Category E(i) would cover only those operations, specially

notified by Government, such as Operation Sindoor or Operation Snow

Leopard etc., and not ongoing operations like Operation Rakshak

(covering entire J & K) or Operation Rhino (covering entire Assam).

Learned ASG also relied on Army Order 01 of 2003, Para 44 to support

the contention that in case of Battle Casualty, reports will not be

initiated in ongoing operations like Operation Rakshak or Operation

Rhino etc.

14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent insisted

that this Court should adopt the same reasoning as that of the AFT and

the High Court as Operation Rakshak at Kargil is an integral part of the 7

“Operations specially notified by the Government from time to time”

under Category E(i) of the MoD Policy dated 31.01.2001. He also

submitted that many High Courts have taken a clear stand that War

Injury Pension is admissible for disabilities attributable to or arising out

of posting at such notified areas. Referring to the very same, Army

Order 1 of 2003, relied on by the ASG, it is submitted that Battle

Casualties are defined under Clauses 4 and 5 and the circumstances

for classification of Physical/Battle Casualties are mentioned in

Appendix ‘A’. He drew our attention to Clause (g) of Appendix ‘A’, to

show that Battle Casualties include casualties occurring while

operating on the International Border or Line of Control due to natural

calamities and illness caused by climatic conditions. On this basis, it is

submitted that respondent’s disability is directly attributable to the

climatic conditions at the Line of Control at Kargil.

15. Having considered the matter in detail, we are of the opinion that

there is a distinction between each of the five categories contemplated

in Category E(i), Para 4.1 of MoD Policy Letter dated 31.01.2001. Of

the five categories, Category E is distinct and stands alone as it is

directly relatable to death or disability arising out of (a) enemy action

in international war, (b) action during deployment with a peacekeeping

mission abroad, (c) border skirmishes, (d) laying and clearing of mines

and minesweeping operations, (e) accidental explosions of mines etc., 8

(f) war-like situations due to extremist acts, battle inoculation, kit

mapping by extremists while on operational duty, flying operations, (g)

acts of violence by extremists, (h) action against extremists, antisocial

elements while agitation and riots, and finally (i) operations specially

notified by the Government from time to time. The sub-categories ‘a’

to ‘h’ clearly indicate egregious situations where the circumstances are

akin to war or extreme violence. These are instances where it can

clearly be expected that the army personnel posted in the area will be

faced with life-threatening situations. Moreover, instances under

Category E may not be exhaustive.

16. Sub-Category E(i) is intended to give flexibility to our defence

administration as it is natural that all war-like situations cannot

comprehensively commence and conclude within the specified eight

Sub-Categories (a) to (h). Government has reserved to itself the

discretion to notify an additional sub-category (i) under Category E

from time to time, depending on the situation that may arise to initiate

an Operation for accomplishing a particular purpose. Going by the

plain language of the Policy, once a notification is issued for a specific

operation, Category E(i) is invoked, unless there is something

indicative either in the Policy or in the notification so issued. 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 9

interpretative aid for us to exclude Operation Rakshak from the scope

of Category E(i).

17. There is no doubt about the fact that the power and jurisdiction

to prescribe applicability of a policy to the concerned personnel or the

conditions for its applicability are completely within the province of the

Defence Administration. However, the policy formulations must clearly

articulate their scope, ambit and their application. If an issue relating

to applicability of a policy arises for consideration, the primary burden

lies on the policymaker to demonstrate the circumstances in which the

benefit would accrue or not accrue. Normally, the policymaker’s

prescription will not be interfered with, unless the court finds that its

approach is beyond the range of reasonable meaning that can be

given to the plain language of the policy. If the policymaker interprets

its own policy against the plain language or in a manner that could be

discriminatory, arbitrary, irrational or goes against the very purpose

and object of the policy, the Courts will disregard the interpretation

offered by the policymaker.

18. 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.

19. We have already indicated that Category E(i), Para 4.1 of MoD

Policy Letter is intended to provide necessary discretion to include 10

certain operations within the fold of the pensionary benefits arising out

of death or disability in certain war-like situations. Moreover, Sub-

category E(i) is enabling in nature. In other words, once operations

specially notified by the Government are issued as Sub-category (i)

does not indicate which of the operations specially notified by

Government fall outside the scope of Sub-category E(i), the policy will

apply and it must. 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, and this

Court has adopted such an approach while interpreting such policies.

20. Attempting to restrict the applicability of pensionary benefit under

Category E(i), the learned ASG relied on para 44 of the Army Order 01

of 2003 to submit that Battle Casualty reports will not be initiated in

ongoing operations like Operation Rakshak or Operation Rhino,

thereby wanting us to conclude that these are not operations falling

under Category E(i). At the first place, Army Order 1 of 2003 is

intended to deal with circumstances for classification of Physical and

Battle Casualties. This Army Order is relied on by the learned counsel

for the respondent to indicate that Battle Casualties are defined under

Clauses 4 and 5 and the circumstances for classification of

Physical/Battle Casualties are mentioned in Appendix ‘A’ of the said 11

Order. Under Clause (g) of Appendix ‘A’, Battle Casualties are defined

to include casualties occurring while operating on the International

Border or Line of Control due to natural calamities like illness caused

by climatic conditions. On this basis, it is submitted that the

respondent’s disability is directly attributable to the climatic conditions

at the Line of Control at Kargil. We are of the opinion that it is

unnecessary to refer to and/or rely on Army Order 1 of 2003, as the

same causes more confusion than it clarifies. Moreover, MoD Policy

Letter dated 31.01.2001 is clear as when there is no distinction

between notifications issued under Category E(i), the benefit of the

said Policy Letter cannot be denied.

21. For the reasons stated above, we see no reason to take a

different view from that of AFT or the High Court. At the same time, we

hasten to add that 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.

22. In view of the above, Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Diary

No. 27220 of 2026 against the judgment and order passed by the High

Court in CWP No. 23117 of 2025 dated 11.08.2025 is hereby

dismissed. 12

23. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

………………………………....J. [PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]

………………………………....J. [ALOK ARADHE] NEW DELHI; OCTOBER 28, 2026.