Operation Rakshak Soldier Wins War Injury Pension, Supreme Court Rules

The Supreme Court on 28 October 2026 dismissed the Centre’s appeal against a war injury pension for Narender Kumar, an Army soldier who developed rheumatoid arthritis while posted in Kargil under Operation Rakshak. A bench of Justice P S Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe held that the Defence Ministry’s own pension policy did not exclude the operation, and told the ministry to issue clear rules, according to reports by LiveLaw and Law Chakra.

Pension Policy Read in the Soldier’s Favour

Kumar will now keep the war injury pension granted by the Armed Forces Tribunal in April 2024 and upheld by the High Court in August 2025, in place of the lower disability pension he had been receiving. The Court said that once an operation is notified under Category E(i) of the ministry’s policy letter of 31 January 2001, ailments developed during it make personnel eligible. “A liberal interpretation is compelling,” the bench said.

The Union had argued that the benefit covers only specially notified operations, naming Operation Sindoor and Operation Snow Leopard, and that Operation Rakshak falls outside it. The only support for that position, the bench noted, was an oral statement by the Additional Solicitor General. “There is no other interpretative aid for us to exclude Operation Rakshak,” the Court said.

Also read DVC Tariff Case: Supreme Court Says APTEL “Gone Haywire” on Review

Joined in 1996, Discharged in 2013

Kumar joined the Army in December 1996 and served at Kargil from July 2003 to July 2005. He was diagnosed with seropositive rheumatoid arthritis in January 2005 and later with two spinal conditions during a posting in West Bengal. He was discharged in January 2013. A Release Medical Board assessed his aggravated disability at 75 per cent for life, and he drew a disability pension until he claimed the war injury pension about six years later.

Defence Ministry Told to Write Clear Rules

The bench said it was “high time” the ministry issued comprehensive and clearly identifiable subordinate legislation for personnel eligible for war injury pension. It also said that whenever an operation is notified under Category E(i), the notification should state whether the pension benefits in Para 4.1 apply. These were suggestions for the ministry, not formal directions.

Other soldiers who served in operations not specially notified, and were refused the pension on the same ground, may now cite the ruling. The ministry has not said whether it will revise the policy.

More on court rulings: Daily Updates, including Supreme Court’s UAPA bail ruling.

Source: Based on reporting by LiveLaw and Law Chakra.

Image: LiveLaw.