Operation Rakshak: Supreme Court Upholds War Injury Pension for Kargil Soldier, Says MoD Cannot Read Exclusions into Pension Policy
Case Name: Union of India & Ors. v. Narender Kumar
Date of Judgment: 28 October 2026
Citation: 2026 INSC 1166
Bench: Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe.
Held: The Supreme Court held that the Ministry of Defence could not deny war injury pension by excluding Operation Rakshak from Category E(i) of its Policy Letter dated 31 January 2001 when the policy contained no such distinction or restriction. Category E(i), covering operations specially notified by the Government, is enabling in nature and must receive a liberal interpretation in matters concerning pensionary benefits. The Court emphasised that a policymaker’s interpretation cannot override the policy’s plain language or defeat its purpose. While notifying operations, the Government must clearly state whether the pensionary benefits under Category E(i) apply.
Summary: The respondent, Narender Kumar, joined the Indian Army on 30 December 1996 and served at Kargil between 13 July 2003 and 6 July 2005, where he developed rheumatoid arthritis (seropositive). He was subsequently diagnosed with lumbar and cervical spinal conditions while posted in West Bengal. Upon his discharge on 31 January 2013, the Release Medical Board accepted all three disabilities as aggravated by military service, assessing the composite disability at 70% for life, rounded off to 75%. He received disability pension comprising service and disability elements.
About six years after discharge, Kumar approached the Armed Forces Tribunal seeking war injury pension for rheumatoid arthritis under Category E(i), contending that the condition arose during his posting at Kargil under Operation Rakshak. The Tribunal allowed his claim on 8 April 2024, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld that decision on 11 August 2025.
Before the Supreme Court, the Union argued that Operation Rakshak was an ongoing operation rather than an operation specially notified for Category E(i). It submitted that the contrary interpretation would render the other clauses of Category E redundant and extend war injury pension to every Army personnel posted in Jammu and Kashmir under Operation Rakshak. The respondent maintained that his posting fell within the notified operation and that his disability was attributable to the climatic conditions at Kargil.
Rejecting the Union’s restrictive interpretation, the Court found no interpretative basis, beyond the Additional Solicitor General’s oral submission, for excluding Operation Rakshak from Category E(i). It held that courts cannot introduce limitations into an unrestricted pension policy. The Court also found reliance on Army Order 01 of 2003 unnecessary, observing that it caused more confusion than clarification in resolving the issue.
The Bench criticised the continuing uncertainty over the applicable defence rules, regulations, instructions and policies, observing that it was “high time” the Ministry issued comprehensive and clearly identifiable subordinate legislation governing the services to ensure fairness and good governance.
Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the Union of India’s appeal and upheld the concurrent decisions granting Narender Kumar war injury pension in place of disability pension for rheumatoid arthritis. It further stated that future notifications under Category E(i) must clearly specify whether the corresponding pensionary benefits apply.