The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently criticised the Union government for objecting to the grant of war injury pension and other benefits to an Army man who was injured during a bomb explosion in the 1971 Indo-Pak war [The Union of India v  Ex Sep Sham Singh & another]

The Bench of Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Vikas Suri rejected the government’s petition challenging Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT)’s order for grant of pensionary benefits to the wife of the soldier, who passed away in May 2021. 

Sham Singh suffered injuries when a bomb from the Pakistan side exploded near him. Since he lost eyesight due to the attack, he was invalidated from military service in 1973. The injury suffered by him was held to be neither attributable nor aggravated by the military service. He moved the AFT in 2017.

The AFT in 2023 ordered that the benefits be released to Singh's wife Karnail Kaur. Besides challenging the CAT order on the ground of limitation, the Central government also argued that rounding off the disability from 20 percent to 50 percent by the Tribunal was incorrect.

The Court, however, refused to accept the argument that the soldier should have applied for the benefits in the first given opportunity and not after 44 years.

“Though, the soldier was not aware of the said benefit of war injury pension but the petitioners very well knew that the soldier suffered an injury in war and is entitled for the benefit of war injury pension but still the Union has ignored the said fact and did not grant the said benefit in favour of such soldier i.e. Sham Singh, for which, he was entitled for and rather expecting such soldiers to revert back to claim the said benefit,” it said.

The Court also criticised the Centre for not treating the disability suffered by the Army man as attributable to military service.

Any injury suffered during the war, especially loss of eyesight, cannot be said to be not attributable to the military services or suffered during war, it ruled.

“Such an action on the part of the petitioners cannot be appreciated especially when it relates to a soldier, who fought for the country and had suffered disability and that too in war between two countries. Hence, the petitioners should have come forward to grant the benefit of war injury pension to Sham Singh i.e. husband of the respondent No.1 rather than raising an objection qua delay in denying the said benefit to him,” the Court said.

The Court also noted that the issue of ‘rounding off of disability pension’ has been settled by the Supreme Court. Thus, it rejected the plea moved by the Union government. 

“Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, the ground taken by the petitioners qua the delay to deny the benefit of war injury pension to Sham Singh cannot be accepted and the present petition is accordingly dismissed,” it ordered.

Senior Panel Counsel Shalini Attri represented the Union of India.

[Read Judgment]