Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India And Ors vs Amrit Pal on 7 November, 2025
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi, Vikas Suri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
106 CWP-33000-2025
Date of Decision: 07.11.2025
Union of India and others ....Petitioners
Versus
Ex Naik Amrit Pal Singh and another ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
----
Present: Ms. Jyoti Choudhary, Senior Panel Counsel
for the petitioners (through V.C).
****
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)
1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 16.05.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2 - Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal), by which, the respondent is held entitled to the grant of war injury pension instead of normal disability pension w.e.f. 01.08.2013 for life.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the prayer of the petitioner is that grant of benefit of war injury pension in favour of respondent No.1, is incorrect as, respondent No.1 had slipped from the stairs while being posted in Batalik Sector of Jammu and Kashmir during continuance of operation 'Vijay' and therefore, the said fact should have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal while adjudicating the entitlement of respondent No.1 for the grant of benefit of war injury pension, which has not been done and therefore, the impugned order dated 16.05.2024 (Annexure P-
1) may kindly be set aside.
1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 12-11-2025 21:16:24 ::: CWP-33000-2025 -: 2 :-
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the case file with her able assistance.
4. On being asked whether, the injury i.e. "Grade I Spondylolisthesis L5 Over S1 (operated)" which has been sustained by respondent No.1 has been attributed to the military service or not, the learned counsel for the petitioners very fairly concedes that the said injury has been treated as attributable to the military service.
5. Once, the injury sustained by respondent No.1 has been treated to be attributable to the military service, the only question which remains open for adjudication is that whether the same has been sustained while posted in a war zone or not as per the instructions which have been issued by the Government of India.
6. A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 16.05.2024 (Annexure P-1) would show that the Tribunal has recorded a finding that as per the instructions dated 31.01.2001 issued by the Government of India, the claim of the respondent falls within Category 'E' of notification dated 31.01.2001 framed by the Government of India, which relates to the grant of war injury pension as, under Category 'E' of sub-clause (i) of said notification any injury suffered by any personnel concerned in the operations specially notified by the Government from time to time, is to be treated as a war injury, which is reproduced as under:-
"Category - 'E'
(a) enemy action in international war.
(b) action during deployment with a peace keeping mission abroad.
(c) border skirmishes.
2 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 12-11-2025 21:16:24 :::
CWP-33000-2025
-: 3 :-
(d) during laying or clearance of mines including enemy
mines as also minesweeping operations.
(e) on account of accidental explosions of mine while laying operationally oriented mine-field or lifting or negotiating minefield 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) extremists acts, exploding mines etc, while on way to an operational area
(ii) battle inoculation training exercises or demonstration with live ammunition. (ili) kidnapping by extremists while on operational duty.
(g) An act of violence/attack by extremists, anti-social elements etc.
(h) Action against extremists, anti-social elements etc. Death/disability while employed in the aid of civil power in quelling agitation, riots or revolt by demonstrators will be covered under this category.
(i) Operations specially notified by the Govt. from time to time."
7. In the present case, respondent No.1 was posted in operation 'Vijay' in Batalik Sector of Jammu and Kashmir during which, he had sustained the injury hence, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the injury is to be treated as a war injury for purpose of grant of war injury pension instead of disability pension, needs no inteference at the hands of this Court as no perversity in the same has been pointed out.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 12-11-2025 21:16:24 ::: CWP-33000-2025 -: 4 :-
9. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
(VIKAS SURI)
November 07, 2025 JUDGE
Varinder
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 12-11-2025 21:16:24 :::