[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Reserved On: 26.02.2026 vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary To ... on 11 March, 2026
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
2025:JKLHC-JMU:3849-DB
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
WP(C) No.191/2024
Reserved on: 26.02.2026
Pronounced on: 11 .03.2026
Uploaded on: 12.03.2026
Raghbir Singh, Age 67
S/o Sh. Budhi Singh,
R/o Village & P.O.Gho Manhasan, Tehsil Marh,
District Jammu (J&K)-181206
...Petitioners(s)
Through:-
Mr. Chakshu Sharma, Advocate
(through virtual mode)
Mr. Sanjog Khatri, Advocate
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary to Government of India,
Ministry of Defence, New Delhi
2. The AFT Tribunal through its
Registrar, Srinagar Bench, Sunjwan Cantt,
Jammu,
3. The Chief of the Army Staff, IHQ of MoD(Army),
Adjutant General‟s Branch, Additional Directorate, Directorate
General Personnel Services, DHQ PO New Delhi-110011.
4. The PCDA (Pension) Grant Section, Allahabad (UP)-211014
5. The Record Officer, Punjab Regiment, Ramgarh Cantonment,
Jharkhand-829130
...Respondent(s)
Through:- Mr. Sumant Sudan, Advocate vice
Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
2025:JKLHC-JMU:3849-DB
Sanjeev Kumar "J"
1. One Raghbir Singh, a retired soldier of Indian Army is before us
in this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to throw challenge to an order and judgment dated 16th
May, 2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional
Bench Srinagar at Jammu ["the Tribunal"] in OA No.230/2022
titled Ex Nk Raghbir Singh v. Union of India and others,
whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the OA of the petitioner,
which was filed primarily to seek a direction to the respondents
to grant him war injury element of pension instead of disability
element w.e.f. 01.07.1994.
2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this petition, as
can be culled out from the pleading of the parties and the order
impugned, are that the petitioner was enrolled in Indian Army
(Punjab Regiment) on 26.11.1977. While serving with 16
Punjab, the petitioner sustained gut shot injury on his left hip at
Rupa Post due to negligent handling of weapon by L/Nk Prem
Pal of the same Regiment. The Court of Inquiry proceedings
conducted in the matter concluded in returning an opinion that
the injury sustained by the petitioner was attributable to military
service in field service concessional area.
3. The petitioner was discharged from service on 30th June, 1994
under Army Rule 30(3) item III (v) before completion of his
2025:JKLHC-JMU:3849-DB
tenure of service. Since the Release Medical Board placed the
petitioner in low medical category CEE (permanent) and the
same was assessed at 40% for two years and attributable to
military service, as such, the disability pension claim of the
petitioner was processed. The petitioner was, thus, granted the
disability pension w.e.f. 01.07.1994 to 05.06.1996. The
petitioner was brought before the Re-survey Medical Board on
15.03.1996 and disability of the petitioner was assessed at 50%
for five years. He continued to get the disability pension w.e.f
06.05.1996 to 14.03.2001. Finally, the petitioner was brought
before the Resurvey Medical Board on 30.12.2005, which
reassessed the composite degree of disablement of the petitioner
@ 50% for life. This was accepted by the PCDA(P), Prayagraj,
who vide PPO No. D/RA/1300/206 dated 12.04.2006 granted the
disability pension to the petitioner for life w.e.f. 30.12.2005.
4. The petitioner accepted the disability pension granted to him for
more than 15 years and it was on 08.07.2021, the petitioner
preferred an application under Right to Information Act, 2005
seeking certain information/documents, which were provided to
him by the Punjab Regiment vide letter dated 16.08.2021. The
petitioner raised claim for grant of war injury element but the
same was turned down by the respondents on the ground that
there was no evidence available with them regarding the war
injury suffered by the petitioner.
2025:JKLHC-JMU:3849-DB
5. Feeling aggrieved of rejection of his claim for war injury
pension, the petitioner filed OA No. 230/2022 before the
Tribunal for grant of war injury element w.e.f. 01.07.1994 for
life. The OA was contested by the respondents. In their
statement of facts filed before the Tribunal, the respondents took
a stand that the petitioner sustained injury on his left hip on
14.06.1990 at Rupa Post due to negligent handling of weapon by
L/Nk Prem Pal of the Unit. It was submitted that the injury
suffered by the petitioner was held attributable to military
service in field service concessional area and, therefore, he was
granted disability pension. The OA was also resisted on the
ground that there was inordinate delay on the part of the
petitioner to approach the Court and, therefore, the OA was hit
by delay and laches.
6. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties and
material on record including the Rule position, the Tribunal
came to the conclusion that the petitioner did not fulfill the
condition for grant of war injury element as per Para-4 of Special
Army Order 8/S/85 nor the injury sustained by him could be held
as battle casualty being not covered under Category-E of
Government of India, Ministry of Defence letter dated
31.01.2001 The claim of the petitioner for war injury element
was, thus, turned down and the OA was dismissed in terms of
the order impugned.
2025:JKLHC-JMU:3849-DB
7. The impugned order has been challenged by the petitioner
primarily on the ground that the Tribunal has mis-interpreted
both, the Special Army Order 8/S/85 and the term "Battle
Casualty" as referable to Government of India, Ministry of
Defence Letter dated 31.01.2001. It is argued on behalf of the
petitioner that a soldier/army man suffering from disability
arising out of an injury received by him in an operational area is
deemed to be a war injury and, therefore, benefit of „War Injury
Element of Pension‟ cannot be denied to such soldier only on the
ground that the injury was accidental in nature and was not
inflicted during the course of operation. It is further argued by
the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that when the
accident took place i.e. 14th June, 1990, the operation Rakshak
was notified by the Government of India and the post where the
petitioner suffered injury was in the area of such operation. He
would, therefore, submit that any injury sustained by army
personnel, whether in an accident or otherwise, in the operation
area should be deemed to be a War Injury. He would argue that
the Tribunal completely missed out to appreciate this aspect in
correct perspective and landed in error in coming to the
conclusion that the injury was only an accidental injury and,
therefore, outside the purview of war casualty or war injury.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material on record, we need to first take note of the admitted
2025:JKLHC-JMU:3849-DB
factual position obtaining in the case. While we are not clear
whether Rupa Post where the accident happened on 14 th June,
1990 was in the operational area of operation „Rakshak‟ notified
by the Government of India or not. It is, however, not in dispute
that the disability was suffered by the petitioner when he was
accidentally hit on his left hip due to negligent handling of the
weapon by L/Nk Prem Pal of his Unit. If we were to presume
that the Rupa Post, on 14.06.1990, was under operation
„Rakshak‟ notified by the Government of India, then the
question arises for determination is, "Whether the accidental
injury suffered by the petitioner would fall within the definition
of War Injury/Battle Casualties?".
9. The "Battle Casualties" is an expression, which finds mention in
Paragraph-4 of Special Army Order 8/S/85. This Special Order
deals with the casualties occurring between 1985 and 2003.
Paragraph-4, which enumerates battle casualties, reads as under:
"Paragraph 4: Battle Casualties: Battle Casualties are those
sustained in action against enemy forces or whilst repelling enemy
air attacks. Casualties of this type consist of the following
categories:-
(a) Killed in action
(b) Died of wounds or injuries (other than self-inflicted)
(c) Wounded or injured (other than self-inflicted)
(d) Missing.
Notes
(1) Air raid casualties are those sustained as a direct or
indirect result of enemy air raid. These will be treated as
battle casualties.
(2) Casualties in fighting against armed hostiles and those
whilst in aid of civil power to maintain internal security
are classified as physical for statistical purposes but are
treated as battle casualties for financial purposes.
2025:JKLHC-JMU:3849-DB
(3) Casualties due to encounter with troops or armed
personnel or border police of a foreign country, or
during fighting in service with peace keeping mission
abroad under government orders will be classified as
battle casualties.
(4) Accidental injuries and deaths occurring in action in
an operational area will be treated as battle casualties.
(5) Accidental injuries which are not sustained in action and
are not in proximity to the enemy, if these have been
caused by fixed apparatus (e.g. land mines, booby traps,
barbed wire or any other obstacle) laid as defences
against the enemy, as distinct from those employed for
training purposes and if the personnel kicked, wounded
or injured were on duty and are not to blame will be
classified as battle casualties notwithstanding the place
of occurrence or agency laying those, viz, own troops or
enemy, provided the casualties occur within the time
limits laid down by the Government.
(6) (6) Saboteurs, even of own country will be treated as
enemy for the purposes of classifying their actions as
enemy action, and encounters against them as
encounters against the enemy.
(7) All casualties during peace time as a result of fighting in
war like operations or border skirmishes with a
neighbouring country will be treated as battle casualties.
(8) Accidental deaths/injuries sustained due to natural
calamites (such as floods, avalanches, landslides and
cyclones) or drowning in river crossings at the time of
performance of operational duties/ movements whilst in
action against enemy forces will be treated as battle
casualties.
(9) Reports regarding personnel wounded or injured in
action will specify the nature of the wound or injury and
will also state whether the personnel remained on duty.
(10) Reports on personnel missing in action will indicate if
possible, their likely fate, e.g. believed killed, believed
prisoner of war, believed drowned.
(11) Casualties occurring while operating on the
international border or line of control due to natural
calamities and illness caused by climatic conditions will
be treated as physical casualties for statistical purposes
and battle casualties for financial purposes.
(12) Casualties taking place while carrying out battle
inoculation/training will be treated as physical
casualties for statistical purposes and battle casualties
for financial purposes."
10. From a reading of paragraph No.4, reproduced herein above, it is
abundantly clear that the battle casualties are those sustained in
an action against enemy forces or while repelling enemy air
attacks. Such casualties could be of the following categories:
2025:JKLHC-JMU:3849-DB
a) killed in action;
b) Died of wounds or injuries (other than self-inflicted)
c) Wounded or injured (other than self-inflicted)
d) Missing
11. Obviously, the petitioner did not suffer injury in any action
against enemy forces or while repelling enemy air attacks. Note-
4 of paragraph No.4, which is strongly relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioner provides that accidental injuries and
deaths occurring in action in operational area shall be treated as
battle casualties. In the instant case, the accidental injury
suffered by the petitioner, even if conceded to be in operational
area will still not fall under the definition of „battle casualties‟
for the reason that the accident in which the petitioner got
injured did not happen in any action. There is no nexus or causal
connection between an action in the operational area and the
injury suffered by the petitioner.
12. Viewed thus, the accidental injury suffered by the petitioner
otherwise than in action in operational area is clearly ruled out
from the purview of „battle casualties". So far as the reliance
placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the
Government of India, Ministry of Defence letter dated
31.01.2001 is concerned, suffice it to say that the provision of
the aforesaid Government Order are applicable only to the armed
2025:JKLHC-JMU:3849-DB
forces personnel, who were in service on 01.01.1996 or joined
thereafter unless otherwise specified in the letter. Para 2.1 of the
letter/order reads as under:-
"2.1 The provisions of this letter shall apply to the Armed Forces
personnel who were in service on 1.1.1996 or joined/join service
thereafter unless otherwise specified in this letter."
13. For determining the pensionary benefits for death/disability
under different circumstances, attributable to or aggravated by
army service, cases have been divided into four different
categories. Para 4.1 of letter dated 31.01.2001 reads thus:-
"4.1 For determining the pensionary benefits for death or
disability under different circumstances due to
attributable/aggravated causes, the cases will be broadly
categorized as follows:-
Category A
Death or disability due to natural causes neither attributable
to nor aggravated by military service as determined by the
competent medical authorities. Examples would be ailments
of nature of constitutional diseases as assessed by medical
authorities; chronic ailments like heart and renal diseases,
prolonged illness, accidents while not on duty.
Category B
Death or disability due to causes which are accepted as
attributable to or aggravated by military service as
determined by the competent medical authorities. Disease
contracted because of continued exposure to a hostile work
environment, subject to extreme weather conditions or
occupational hazards resulting in death or disability would
be examples.
Category C
Death or disability due to accidents in the performance of
duties such as:-
2025:JKLHC-JMU:3849-DB
(i) Accidents while travelling on duty in Government
Vehicles or public/private transport
(ii) Accidents during air journeys
(iii) Mishaps at sea while on duty
(iv) Electrocution while on duty, etc
(v) Accidents during participation in organized sports
events/ adventure activities/expeditions/ training.
Category D
Death or disability due to acts of violence/attack by
terrorists, anti-social elements, etc whether on duty other
than operational duty or even when not on duty. Bomb blasts
in public places or transport, indiscriminate shooting
incidents in public, etc. would be covered under this
category, besides death/disability occurring while employed
in the aid of civil power in dealing with natural calamities.
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 and will cover:-
2025:JKLHC-JMU:3849-DB
(a) Flying operation involved in rehearsing of
war plans and implementation of OP instructions
inclusive of international exercise.
(b) All combat and tactical sorties in preparation of war
(iii)Kidnapping by extremists while on operational duty.
(g) An act of violence/attack by extremists, anti-social
elements etc while on operational duty.
(i) Operations specially notified by the Govt. from time
to time."
14. Category-E, which is relevant for our purpose, clearly deals with
death or disability that has arisen as a result of operation
specially notified by the Government from time to time. From a
plain reading of the provision, it is crystal clear that death or
disability would be covered under Category-E only if the same
has arisen as a result of operation specifically notified by the
Government from time to time. This again speaks of a clear
nexus between the death or disability with the operation notified
by the Government for a particular area. Accidental injuries or
deaths which are not in any way connected with the operational
duties cannot be said to be „War Casualties‟ or „War Injuries‟.
There should be a direct and causal connection of the injury with
the duties connected with the operational area specially notified
by the Government.
15. In the instant case, there is no material on record to conclude that
the injury that was suffered by the petitioner due to negligent
handling of weapon by a co-soldier in the post is a result of any
2025:JKLHC-JMU:3849-DB
operation undertaken by the Unit in the notified area. That apart,
in the instant case, the injury occurred in the year 1990 and
Government Order was issued on 31.01.2001, making it
applicable only to the armed forces personnel, who were in
service on 01.01.1996 or joined army service thereafter. From
reading of the Government Order dated 31.01.2001 in its
entirety, we could not find that the past cases, too, have been
provided to be covered by it.
16. For the foregoing reasons as also the detailed reasons given by
the Tribunal in support of its judgment, we find no merit in this
petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Sanjay Parihar) (Sanjeev Kumar)
Judge Judge
JAMMU
11.03.2026
Vinod, Secy Whether the order is speaking : Yes
Whether the order is reportable: Yes
