Terms Centre’s Stand “Very Unfortunate”; Says Injury Sustained While Searching for Terrorists in Sri Lanka Clearly Attributable to Military Service
Chandigarh:
In a significant ruling reinforcing the rights of armed forces personnel injured during operational duties, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a soldier who suffered a serious eye injury while searching for terrorists during Operation Pawan in Sri Lanka is entitled to war injury pension. The court strongly criticized the Union of India for attempting to deny the benefit, terming its stand “very unfortunate”.
Dismissing a petition filed by the Union of India, a Division Bench of Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Deepak Manchanda upheld an order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), Chandigarh, directing the grant of war injury pension to former soldier Naik Nahar Singh.
The case arose from injuries sustained by Nahar Singh while serving with the 1 PARA Regiment as part of the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) deployed in Sri Lanka under Operation Pawan. During an anti-terrorist search operation in a jungle area, bushes and tree branches struck his left eye, causing a perforating injury that ultimately resulted in 50 per cent disability.
The Centre had argued that the injury was not a battle casualty because it was caused by bushes and branches rather than direct enemy action. It further contended that the soldier should have exercised greater caution while performing duties in the operational area and, therefore, the injury could not be categorized as a war injury.
Rejecting the argument outright, the High Court observed that the injury was sustained while the soldier was carrying out bona fide military duties in a notified operational zone. The Bench said it was surprising and unfortunate that the government sought to deny service-related benefits to a soldier injured while actively participating in an operation against terrorists.
“It is very unfortunate to note that the Union of India has termed an injury suffered by a soldier in a jungle in an operational area while being posted in a peacekeeping force in Sri Lanka as not attributable to military service,” the Bench observed.
The court further held that a soldier searching for terrorists in difficult jungle terrain faces operational hazards as part of military duty, and injuries suffered in such circumstances cannot be separated from service conditions. The Bench added that merely because the injury resulted from environmental conditions encountered during an operation did not diminish its connection with military service.
Referring to the applicable pension regulations, the High Court noted that Operation Pawan was a specially notified military operation. Therefore, injuries suffered during the performance of assigned duties in the operational area qualified for treatment as war injuries.
Upholding the Tribunal’s findings, the Bench ruled that the injury suffered by Nahar Singh was not only attributable to military service but had occurred while he was performing duties under orders issued by the Government of India in an operational area. The court also affirmed the Tribunal’s decision to round off the disability element from 50 per cent to 75 per cent for pensionary benefits.
With the ruling, the former soldier will now be entitled to war injury pension along with the enhanced disability benefits granted by the Tribunal.