Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India And Ors vs Parmod Singh And Anr on 31 October, 2025
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi, Vikas Suri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
110 CWP-32209-2025
Date of Decision: 31.10.2025
Union of India and others
....Petitioners
Versus
Ex Nk Parmod Singh and another
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
----
Present: Ms. Neha Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel
for the petitioners.
****
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)
1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 13.02.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2-Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh, (for short 'the Tribunal') by which, respondent No.1 has been granted the benefit of war injury pension @ 60% for life which has been rounded off @75%, on the ground that the same is perverse.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the order dated 13.02.2023 (Annexure P-1) is incorrect on the ground that the area where respondent No.1 was posted was not declared as a war zone so as to be considered the respondent No.1 under category E of instructions dated 31.01.2001 in order to claim the war injury pension. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the grant of the benefit in favour of respondent 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2025 23:33:06 ::: CWP-32209-2025 -: 2 :- No.1 by the Tribunal is without appreciating all the facts which were brought on record.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record with her able assistance.
4. In the present petition, the factum that respondent No.1 was posted in Kashmir under operation 'Vijay' and had suffered the disability in question i.e. Deafness LT Ear 2-1/2 MTRS while being posted there, has gone unrebutted. It is further conceded that on the basis of the said injury suffered by respondent No.1, he was ultimately invalidated out on 31.07.2003.
5. The only question which arises is whether, respondent No.1 is to be granted the benefit of disability pension which has already been granted to him or the war injury pension as is being claimed by him.
6. A bare perusal of the instructions dated 31.01.2001 as mentioned in the impugned order clearly shows that as per category E of sub-clause (i), any operation which is specifically notified by the Government from time to time, will be covered under category E and it is a conceded position that respondent No.1 was working under operation 'Vijay' as notified by the Government and therefore, will be covered under sub-clause (i) of category E. It is a conceded position that under 'category E', the war injury pension is admissible to the respondent No.1, 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.
(d) during laying or clearance of mines including enemy
2 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2025 23:33:07 :::
CWP-32209-2025
-: 3 :-
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. Once, the disability suffered by respondent No.1 has been assessed @ 60%, injury was attributable to the military service as the same was suffered by respondent during the time he was serving in operation 'Vijay', the same has to be rounded off to 75% as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India and others vs. Ram Avtar, 2014 SCC Online SC 1761. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to dispute the same.
8. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, the order dated 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2025 23:33:07 ::: CWP-32209-2025 -: 4 :- 13.02.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Tribunal granting respondent No.1 the benefit of war injury pension @75%, is not perverse either on facts or on law.
9. Further, the Coordinate Bench of this Court while passing order in CWP-16736-2025 titled Union of India and others vs. B Rama Krishna and another, decided on 01.07.2025, on the similar facts under the operation 'Vijay', the admissibility of war injury pension has been upheld. The said fact has also gone unrebutted.
10. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
12. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
(VIKAS SURI)
October 31, 2025 JUDGE
Varinder
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2025 23:33:07 :::