The Supreme Court has upheld the grant of war injury pension to a former Army personnel whose rheumatoid arthritis developed during his posting at Kargil under Operation Rakshak, rejecting the Ministry of Defence’s attempt to exclude the operation from the applicable pension policy without a clear basis in its wording.

The Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe dismissed the Union government’s appeal against concurrent decisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal and the High Court. The judgment was delivered on October 28, 2026. Where the policy does not distinguish between operations specially notified by the government, pensionary benefits cannot be denied by introducing restrictions through interpretation. It also said the government must clearly state, while notifying operations, whether the relevant pensionary benefits apply.

Buy Now: 90+ Supreme Court Judgments – September 2026

The former soldier joined the Indian Army on December 30, 1996, and served at Kargil between July 13, 2003, and July 6, 2005. During that posting, he was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis (seropositive). He subsequently developed lumbar and cervical spinal conditions while posted in West Bengal.

Following his application for discharge, he was released from service on January 31, 2013. The Release Medical Board accepted all three disabilities as aggravated by military service. His combined disability was assessed at 70% for life, rounded off to 75% for life, as recorded in the judgment.

Having completed more than 16 years of service, he received a disability pension comprising the service element and disability element.

Around six years after discharge, he approached the Armed Forces Tribunal seeking war injury pension for rheumatoid arthritis in place of the disability pension already granted for that ailment.

His claim rested on Category E(i) of paragraph 4.1, Part II, of the Ministry of Defence’s policy letter dated January 31, 2001, which covers death or disability arising from operations specially notified by the government.

The Armed Forces Tribunal allowed the application on April 8, 2024. It found that rheumatoid arthritis originated in January 2005 during the soldier’s Kargil posting and held that he had established entitlement to the war injury element under Category E(i).

The High Court dismissed the Ministry’s challenge on August 11, 2025, relying on the Release Medical Board’s opinion concerning the disease’s origin during his Kargil posting.

Before the Supreme Court, the Ministry argued that Operation Rakshak was an ongoing operation and did not qualify as a specially notified operation for Category E(i). It contended that accepting the claim would effectively entitle every Army personnel posted in Jammu and Kashmir under Operation Rakshak to war injury pension.

The Supreme Court explained that Category E addresses death or disability arising in circumstances involving war or situations akin to war, including enemy action, border skirmishes, mine-related operations and extremist violence.

Sub-category E(i), the Bench held, provides flexibility to include additional operations specially notified by the government because every possible war-like situation cannot be comprehensively captured in the preceding clauses.

The Court found no interpretative basis, beyond the Additional Solicitor General’s oral submission, for excluding Operation Rakshak from the provision.

It recognised the Defence Administration’s authority to prescribe the scope and conditions of its policies. However, those conditions must be clearly articulated. Where a dispute arises, the primary burden rests on the policymaker to demonstrate when the benefit accrues or does not accrue.

The Bench explained that courts may disregard a policymaker’s interpretation where it conflicts with the policy’s plain language or is discriminatory, arbitrary, irrational or contrary to its purpose.

The Court emphasised that an unrestricted pension policy should not be narrowed through interpretation. Considering the provision’s purpose of granting pensionary benefits, it held that a liberal interpretation was compelling.

The Ministry also relied on paragraph 44 of Army Order 01 of 2003 concerning battle casualty reports in ongoing operations. The Court considered reliance on that order unnecessary, observing that it caused more confusion than clarity when the pension policy itself did not distinguish between notifications under Category E(i).

Upholding the concurrent decisions, the Bench dismissed the appeal. It added that the government must clearly indicate, while notifying operations, whether the pensionary benefits contemplated by Category E(i) apply.

The Bench also expressed concern over continuing uncertainty about the applicable Ministry of Defence rules, regulations, instructions and policies.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Scrap Dealers Can No More Claim RCM Registration Exemption From 1 November, 2026