CWP-17031-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (119) CWP-17031-2026 Date of Decision : May 26, 2026 Union of India and others .. Petitioners Versus Ex. NK Bhagat Singh and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL) 1. In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 17.05.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2-Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) by which, respondent No.1 has been allowed the benefit of War Injury Pension by rounding off the same from @ 75% as against 60% w.e.f. 01.09.2017 for life on the ground that the same is perverse. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the grant of benefit of war injury pension by the Tribunal vide impugned order dated 17.05.2024 (Annexure P-1) is not correct as same is not to be considered as battle causality as, the officer though received the injury @ ‘Gunshot Wound Right Knee (Optd) Transtibial Amputation Done’ during continuance of Operation Rakshak, but same was received at the hands of another personnel due to such personnel’s misconception that there was some militant movement hence, the same cannot be treated as battle causality/injury as there is no casual connection between the injury HARSHA RANI 2026.05.29 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17031-2026 2 suffered and military duty. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that under any circumstances, even if for the sake of argument the injury suffered by respondent No. 1 is to be treated as attributable to the military service, the benefit of war injury pension cannot be granted to the respondent No. 1 as, the grant of the said benefit is contrary to the instructions, which have been issued by the Government of India, circulated vide letter dated 31.01.2001. 3. Learned counsel for he petitioners further submits that as the injury was suffered by respondent No.1 while he was deployed in counter- insurgency during Operation Rakshak in Anantnag (Jammu & Kashmir in 7 Rashtriya Rifles) and suffered injuries by him were due to act of another personnel who under the impression that there was militant movement shot respondent No.1 hence, though the injury suffered by respondent No.1 has been treated to be attributable to the military service by the Tribunal vide impugned order but said view taken is not correct and even the benefit of rounding off same from @ 75% as against 60% w.e.f. 01.09.2017 by placing reliance upon the judgment in Civil Appeal No.418-2012 Union of India and others vs. Ram Avtar, decided on 10.12.2014, is incorrect and the facts of the present case have not been appreciated in correct perspective by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order dated 17.05.2024 (Annexure P-1). 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record with his able assistance. 5. From the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and perusal of file, it transpires that the grievance of the petitioners is qua the grant of benefit of War Injury Pension and the benefit HARSHA RANI 2026.05.29 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17031-2026 3 of rounding off the same from 60% to 75%, which benefits have been wrongly granted to respondent No.1 by the Tribunal vide order dated 17.05.2024 (Annexure P-1). 6. It is pertinent to take into note that the instructions dated 31.01.2001 which have been issued by the Government of India, as per which instructions, the injury suffered by respondent No.1 would fall under category E(i), which is reproduced as under:- “Category – ‘E’ Death and Disability arising due to (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 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. (iii) 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, respondent No.1 while being posted in Operation Rakshak and performing active military service, suffered an injury at the hands of another personnel, who under the impression that there was militant movement shot respondent No.1, same has to be treated as having been suffered while performing bona fide duty. Even the shots he received HARSHA RANI 2026.05.29 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17031-2026 4 were fired by another personnel so as to neutralize militants though under wrong impression. Hence, the case of respondent No.1 is squarely covered under instructions dated 31.01.2001 and he is entitled for grant of War Injury Pension. 8. Question which arises is whether said injury suffered by the respondent No.1 can be said to have been incurred while performing bona fide military service while being posted under ‘Operation Rakshak’ so as to treat the same as attributable to military service. 9. With regard to grievance of the petitioners qua grant of benefit of rounding off of War Injury Pension, as per the settled principle of law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ram Avtar’s case (supra), it has been held that an Armed Forces personnel is entitled to be granted the benefit of rounding off, irrespective of the fact that he was invalidated out of service, or retired on attaining the age of superannuation or on completion of his tenure of his engagement, if found to be suffering from some disability which is attributable or aggravated by the Military service. Relevant paras of the judgment in Ram Avtar’s case (supra) are as under:- “4. By the present set of appeals the appellant(s) raise the question, whether or not, an individual, who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or on completion of his tenure of engagement, if found to be suffering from some disability which is attributable to or aggravated by the military service, is entitled to be granted the benefit of rounding-off of disability pension. The appellant(s) herein would contend that, on the basis of Circular No. 1(2)/97/D(Pen-C) issued by the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, dated 31.01.2001, the aforesaid HARSHA RANI 2026.05.29 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17031-2026 5 benefit is made available only to an Armed Forces Personnel who is invalidated out of service, and not to any other category of Armed Forces Personnel mentioned hereinabove. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 6. We do not see any error in the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) and therefore all the appeals which pertain to the concept of rounding-off of the disability pension are dismissed, with no order as to costs. 7. The dismissal of these matters will be taken note of by the High Courts as well as by the Tribunals in granting appropriate relief to the pensioners before them, if any, who are getting or are entitled to the disability pension.” 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to dispute the said proposition of law having been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ram Avtar’s case (supra) to the effect that percentage of War Injury Pension is to be rounded off and when applied in present case, same is be rounded off to 75% as against 60%. 11. Keeping in view the facts and circumstance of the present case, that it was only during the continuance of Operation Rakshak period that respondent No.1 was found to be suffering from disability of ‘Gunshot Wound Right Knee (Optd) Transtibial Amputation Done’, that being so, the said disability has to be attributed to the military service and therefore, Tribunal has rightly granted the benefit of war injury pension to the respondent No.1 and further even benefit of rounding off has also been rightly granted keeping in view the settled principles of law discussed HARSHA RANI 2026.05.29 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17031-2026 6 hereinbefore. 12. No further arguments raised. 13. Hence, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out in the impugned order dated 17.05.2024 (Annexure P-1) either on the basis of the facts or the settled principle of law, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 14. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE May 26, 2026 (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) harsha JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No HARSHA RANI 2026.05.29 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document