War Injury Pension/ Disability Pension Is 'Right' Of Eligible Military Personnel, Not Bounty: Kerala High Court

In this Writ Petition, the Armed Forces Tribunal order was challenged before the High Court. The issue was whether the respondent, an army officer who received lumpsum compensation for 'normal disability' in 2000 was entitled to opt for a war injury pension after his injury was reclassified as 'Battle Casualty' in 2009. The Court was thus considering if the official could get the war injury pension by repaying the lump sum compensation he received earlier, according to the Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran And Justice Harisankar V. Menon upheld the Tribunal order that the respondent was entitled to war injury pension on repayment of compensation that he received earlier.

“….the eligibility for disability pension/war injury pension is a right available to military personnel. Therefore, the said claim is to be extended by interpreting the clauses liberally and extending the benefits available to the claimant”, stated the Court

Background Facts

The respondent herein is the applicant before the Tribunal who was an army officer, that superannuated in the year 2013.

In 1995, the respondent sustained injuries to both hands from a mine blast and his degree for disablement was assessed at 40% for life. He received a lumpsum compensation of Rs 60,192 in 2001. In 2009, the injury sustained by the respondent was classified as a 'Battle Casualty'.

In addition to the blast injury which was assessed at 40%, the respondent developed bronchial asthma aggravated by military service which was assessed at 20%. Consequently, his composite disability was evaluated at 50% for life.

The respondent's request to return the lump sum compensation with interest to qualify for a disability pension was denied by the Armed Forces Tribunal since he already received lump sum compensation for the mine blast injury assessed at 40%. The Tribunal noted that the respondent's residual disability was less than 20%, making him ineligible for a disability pension under the Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008.

However, the Tribunal directed authorities to pay the respondent additional amounts beyond the lumpsum compensation, given that his injury had been classified as a war injury rather than a normal disability (order dated March 28, 2016 in OA No.52 of 2015).

Later, in a subsequent application preferred by the authorities, the Tribunal ordered (order dated October 19, 2022 in OA No.90 of 2019) that the respondent was eligible for war injury pension since he was earlier paid disability pension and not war injury pension. Thus, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to return the lumpsum amount along with interest to authorities and directed them to grant him war injury pension for life along with arrears from date of discharge. Aggrieved by the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal, the authorities have approached the High Court.

Court Findings

The Court found that even the earlier order of the Tribunal found that compensation paid to the respondent was against normal disability and not war injury disability.

The Court referred to the provisions of Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008. Disability pension falls under Chapter IV, and war injury pension is covered under Section 2 of Chapter IV. It also referred to Regulation 99, Section 2 of Chapter IV which provides for war injury pension.

Referring to the provisions of Pension Regulations, the Court stated war injury pension is not a bounty given to military personnel.

The Court said, “ ….the above are beneficial provisions applicable for military personnel, considering the nature of the service, they are rendering to the nation at large. In such a situation, a beneficial interpretation is to be given to the above provisions, especially, when it is provided that war injury pension under Regulation 99 is an entitlement to the military personnel in a liberalized manner on satisfying the other conditions laid down”.

The Court further referred to Union of India v. Rajbir Singh (2015) which stated that claims made by military personnel for disability pension as well as war injury pension under the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 are to be beneficially interpreted. It stated that beneficial interpretation of Regulations was imperative considering the services rendered by the military personnel for the nation.

In the facts of the case, the Court noted that the respondent suffered blast injuries to both hands and underwent an operation to amputate three fingers of the left hand. It stated that initially this injury was classified as a 'normal disability' and he was paid lumpsum compensation as a case of disability pension under Section 1(I) of Chapter IV of the Regulations in the year 2000.

The Court went on to state that his injury was re-classified as war injury only in the year 2009.

The Court stated that Pension Regulations do not provide for repayment of the compensation received and subsequent claim of pension under a different head. However, the Court stated that the above contingency occurred due to the time taken for the classification of the injury as a 'Battle Casualty'.

The Court stated that eligibility for disability pension or war injury pension is a right available to military personnel and therefore the provisions of Pension Regulations must be interpreted in a way that is beneficial to them. Thus, the Court held that the authorities cannot challenge the order of the Tribunal on technical grounds.

As such, the Court dismissed the petition and confirmed the order of the Tribunal granting war injury pension to the respondent on repayment of compensation received earlier.

Counsel for Petitioner: Central Government Counsel T V Vinu

Counsel for Respondent: Advocates T.R.Jagadeesh, V.A.Vinod, Adi Narayanan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 514

Case Title: Union of India v Colonel Shashi Thomas

Case Number: WP(C) NO. 2118 OF 2024

Click here to read/download Order