Landmark Ruling: HC Expands 'War Injury' Definition, Paves Way for Soldier Benefits
Chandigarh (The Uttam Hindu): The Punjab and Haryana High Court has given a historic verdict in favor of the soldiers and clarified the definition of 'war injury'. In its important decision, the court has said that if a soldier is injured while going for official work like bringing kerosene oil during 'Operation Raksha' in a sensitive area like Jammu and Kashmir, then it will be considered in the category of 'war injury' and he will be entitled to special disability pension.
What is the whole matter?
This order was given by a division bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta while dismissing a petition filed by the Central Government. The Central Government had challenged an order of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) Chandigarh Bench dated May 17, 2023. In its order, the AFT had directed to give the benefit of 'war injury pension' to former soldier B. Ramakrishna from 2012.
Sepoy B. Ramakrishna was on duty under 'Operation Raksha' in Jammu and Kashmir. During this time, while going in a government jeep to fetch kerosene oil, he was seriously injured and became permanently disabled when the vehicle skidded.
The court rejected the Centre's argument.
The Central Government had argued in the High Court that the soldier was only part of a working party bringing kerosene and his injury was the result of a normal accident, hence it cannot be considered a war injury.
However, the High Court rejected the Centre's argument. The court said, "It is an admitted fact that at the time when the soldier was injured, 'Operation Raksha' (anti-terrorism operation going on in Jammu and Kashmir) was active in the concerned area and he was on government duty. Once a working party is sent in a government vehicle, it will be considered a part of the operation."
The court upheld the decision of the AFT and said that the order to provide lifelong war injury pension and related allowances to the soldier from September 21, 2012 is appropriate. With this, the court rejected the petition of the Central Government.