Supreme Court: pension policies for armed forces personnel must be construed liberally in the claimant's favour

In Union of India v. Narender Kumar, the Supreme Court dismissed the Ministry of Defence's appeal against concurrent findings of the Armed Forces Tribunal and the Punjab and Haryana High Court granting a soldier War Injury Pension, rather than ordinary Disability Pension, for Rheumatoid Arthritis he developed while posted at Kargil during Operation Rakshak. The dispute turned on whether Operation Rakshak fell within 'Category E(i)' of the Ministry's Policy Letter dated 31 January 2001, which covers specially notified operations for War Injury Pension purposes. The Union argued the policy's language should be read narrowly, relying on a separate Army Order on classifying Battle Casualties.

The Court rejected this, holding that the Policy Letter's wording was unrestrictive and that it was not for a court to narrow a beneficial pension policy through interpretation, especially where the Government's own notification did not exclude Operation Rakshak. It added that when notifying operations under Category E(i), the Government must clearly state whether War Injury Pension benefits apply, to avoid such disputes. The appeal was dismissed and the respondent's pension status upheld.