150 UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND OTHERS EX. NK AJAY KUMAR AND ANOTHER CORAM: Present: HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) 1. dated 03.12.2024 (Annexure P Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Tribunal’) Pension has been granted in favour of the respondent No.1. 2. was enrolled service on 11.06.2018 in Low Medical Category. While posting in the URI Sector at the Line of Control with Pakistan, massive earthquake struck in Northern Region wherein a bunker was collapsed and the respondent No.1 was trapped under it. He was found t IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.22057 of 2026 (O&M) Date of Decision : UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND OTHERS VERSUS EX. NK AJAY KUMAR AND ANOTHER CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Ms. Shalini Atri, Senior Panel Counsel For the petitioners-Union of India. Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.1. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) In the present petition, the challenge is to th 03.12.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2 Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Tribunal’) in OA No.713 of 2020 by which, the benefit of War Injury Pension has been granted in favour of the respondent No.1. The brief facts of the present case are that the respondent No.1 was enrolled in the Indian Army on 04.09.200 service on 11.06.2018 in Low Medical Category. While posting in the URI Sector at the Line of Control with Pakistan, massive earthquake struck in Northern Region wherein a bunker was collapsed and the respondent No.1 was trapped under it. He was found to be suffering from the disability of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.22057 of 2026 (O&M) Date of Decision : 20.07.2026 UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND OTHERS ........Petitioners VERSUS EX. NK AJAY KUMAR AND ANOTHER ........Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL s. Shalini Atri, Senior Panel Counsel Union of India. Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.1. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order ) passed by respondent No.2-Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the in OA No.713 of 2020 by which, the benefit of War Injury Pension has been granted in favour of the respondent No.1. The brief facts of the present case are that the respondent No.1 in the Indian Army on 04.09.2002 and invalidated out fr service on 11.06.2018 in Low Medical Category. While posting in the URI Sector at the Line of Control with Pakistan, massive earthquake struck in Northern Region wherein a bunker was collapsed and the respondent No.1 o be suffering from the disability of UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY TO e impugned order Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the in OA No.713 of 2020 by which, the benefit of War Injury The brief facts of the present case are that the respondent No.1 2 and invalidated out from service on 11.06.2018 in Low Medical Category. While posting in the URI Sector at the Line of Control with Pakistan, massive earthquake struck in Northern Region wherein a bunker was collapsed and the respondent No.1 o be suffering from the disability of SAPNA GOYAL 2026.07.27 14:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.22057 of 2026 (O&M) -2- “CRUSH INJURY (LT) LOWER LIMB VO5 AND AMPUTATION BELOW KNEE (LT) S.88”, and the said disablement was assessed @ 60%. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that although respondent No. 1 was found to be suffering from the injury, namely, “CRUSH INJURY (LT) LOWER LIMB VO5 AND AMPUTATION BELOW KNEE (LT) S.88”, which was sustained while he was posted at URI Sector (Jammu and Kashmir) at the Line of Control with Pakistan during his deployment under Operation Rakshak and the said injury cannot be treated as a Battle Casualty. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the grant of the benefit of War Injury Pension to respondent No. 1 is erroneous and contrary to the applicable provisions. 4. On advance notice, Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and submits that the question as to whether the injury sustained by an individual is to be treated as a Battle Casualty for the purpose of grant of War Injury Pension is to be determined in accordance with the Instructions dated 31.01.2001. It is submitted that any injury sustained while serving in an operational area is to be treated as an injury sustained in a War Zone hence, the learned Tribunal has rightly extended the benefit of War Injury Pension to respondent No. 1. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 further submits that respondent No. 1 is also entitled to the grant of Ex-Gratia Lumpsum Compensation in terms of the Instructions dated 04.09.2017 whereas Category ‘E’ covers the case of respondent No. 1, keeping in view the facts SAPNA GOYAL 2026.07.27 14:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.22057 of 2026 (O&M) -3- and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present writ petition may kindly be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the records of the present case with their able assistance. 7. It may be noticed that the grant of War Injury Pension is governed by the provisions contained in Regulation 82 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, Part-I (2008), wherein War Injury Pension is admissible if an individual is invalidated from service on account of disabilities sustained under the circumstances mentioned in Category ‘E’ of Regulation 82 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, Part-I (2008). In addition thereto, the Government of India has issued detailed Instructions dated 31.01.2001 prescribing the guidelines for regulating the grant of War Injury Pension. Category ‘E’ of the said Instructions, issued under the aforesaid provisions, is reproduced hereinbelow:- “CATEGORY-E (a) Enemy action in international war, (b)action during deployment with a peace keeping mission abroad (c) border skirmishes. (d) During laying/clearance of mines including enemy mines as also minesweeping operations. (e) On account of accidental explosions of mines while laying operationally oriented mine-filed or lifting or negotiating minefiled 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) Extremist acts, exploding mines, etc., while on way to an operational area. (ii) Battle inoculation training exercises or demonstrations with live ammunition. (iii) Kidnapping by extremists while on operational duty. (g) An act of violence/attack by extremists and anti-social elements etc. SAPNA GOYAL 2026.07.27 14:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.22057 of 2026 (O&M) -4- (h) Action against extremists, anti-social elements etc. Death/disability or while employed in aid of civil power in quelling agitation, riots or revolts by demonstrators will be covered under this category. (i) Operations specially notified by the Government from time to time.” 8. A bare perusal of the above provisions would show that an injury sustained in an operational area is to be treated as a War Injury for the purpose of grant of the aforesaid benefit. In the present case, the injury sustained by respondent No. 1 occurred on the Line of Control with Pakistan, which was declared as an operational area under Operation Rakshak. Therefore, the injury sustained by respondent No. 1 falls within the ambit of the provisions governing the grant of War Injury Pension. 9. Further, it is pertinent to note that the grant of Ex-Gratia Lumpsum Compensation is governed by the Instructions issued by the Government of India dated 04.09.2017. The relevant provisions of the said Instructions are reproduced hereinbelow:- “9.1 The Ex-gratia lump sum compensation to Defence Service personnel who are boarded out of service on account of disability/war injury attributable to or aggravated by military service, shall be paid @ Rs. 20 lakh for 100% disability subject to provisions as stipulated in this Ministry’s letter No. 2(2)/2011/D(Pen/Pol) dated 26.12.2011. For disability/wary injury less than 100% but not less than 20%, the amount of Ex-gratia compensation shall be proportionately reduced. No Ex-gratia lump sum compensation shall be payable for disability war injury less than 20%. The proportionate compensation would be based on actual percentage of disability as certified by the Invaliding Medical Board, without applying broad banding provisions as contained in Para 7.2 of this Ministry’s letter No. 1(2)/97/D(Pen-C) dated 31.01.2001.” 10. A bare perusal of the above provisions would show that the injuries sustained by respondent No. 1 are covered for the grant of Ex-Gratia SAPNA GOYAL 2026.07.27 14:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.22057 of 2026 (O&M) -5- Lumpsum Compensation. The aforesaid fact has remained un-rebutted at the hands of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 11. No other argument is raised. 12. Keeping in view the above, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 13. Present petition stands dismissed. 14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE 20-07-2026 Sapna Goyal (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/ reasoned: YES Whether reportable: NO SAPNA GOYAL 2026.07.27 14:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document