The Union Of India vs Narender Kumar

REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 1166


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)

J U D G M E N T
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
1 2
Tribunal (AFT) and the High Court 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:

1
In OA No. 221 of 2019, dated 08.04.2024.
2
In CWP No. 23117 of 2025, dated 11.08.2025.
1

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.
3

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
4

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
5

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
6

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.
13