Shot by colleague, but no ‘battle’ tag: Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court denies ‘war injury’ pension to soldier

Underscoring that negligent handling of a weapon by a fellow soldier and injuries caused by it is not a war casualty, the bench said that accidental injuries or deaths which are not in any way connected with the operational duties cannot be said to be “war casualties” or “war injuries”.

Background

• The matter arose from the petition of a retired soldier of the Indian Army, Raghbir Singh.
• The petitioner enrolled in the Punjab Regiment in 1977. On June 14, 1990, while stationed at Rupa Post, Singh sustained a gunshot injury to his left hip.
• The injury was allegedly caused by the negligent handling of a weapon by a fellow soldier.
• Following the incident, a court of inquiry determined the injury was “attributable to military service in a field service concessional area”.
• Singh was subsequently discharged in 1994 in a low medical category and was granted a disability pension, which was later assessed at 50 per cent for life in 2005.
• However, in 2021, Singh moved to claim the higher “war injury element” of pension, arguing his injury should be classified as a war injury because it occurred in an operational area (Operation Rakshak).
• He challenged the May 16, 2023, order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, which dismissed the original application of the petitioner.
• The petitioner’s counsel, Chakshu Sharma, argued that any injury sustained by personnel in a notified operational area, whether accidental or otherwise, should be deemed a “war injury”.

‘Direct connection needed’

• We are not clear whether Rupa Post, where the accident happened on June 14, 1990, was in the operational area of Operation Rakshak notified by the Government of India, the court observed.
• It is, however, not in dispute that the disability was suffered by the petitioner when he was accidentally hit on his left hip due to negligent handling of the weapon by a fellow member of his unit.
• If we were to presume that the Rupa Post was under operation Rakshak, then the question that arises for determination is “whether the accidental injury suffered by the petitioner would fall within the definition of war injury/battle casualties?”

• “Battle casualties” is an expression that finds mention in Paragraph 4 of Special Army Order 8/S/85.
• The accidental injury suffered by the petitioner, even if conceded to be in the operational area, will still not fall under the definition of “battle casualties” for the reason that the accident in which the petitioner got injured did not happen in any action.
• The accidental injury suffered by the petitioner, other than in action in the operational area, is clearly ruled out from the purview of “battle casualties”.
• There should be a direct and causal connection between the injury and the duties connected with the operational area specially notified by the government.
• There is no material on record to conclude that the injury, suffered by the petitioner due to the negligent handling of weapon by a co-soldier in the post, is the result of any operation undertaken by the unit in the notified area.