Army man blinded by tree branch in Sri Lanka terror op gets war pension

“It is very unfortunate to note that the petitioners, Union of India, have termed an injury suffered by a soldier in a jungle in an operational area while being posted in a peacekeeping force in Sri Lanka as not to be attributed to the military service. A soldier who was searching for terrorists in a jungle sustained injuries in the eyes due to the bushes and branches of the trees, the contention of the petitioners- Union of India that the said injury cannot be attributed to military service cannot be accepted,” the high court said on May 22.

Justices Harsimran Singh Sethi and Deepak Manchanda said that the injury suffered by the soldier is attributable to military service. (Image enhanced using AI)

‘Injury attributable to military service’

• The injury suffered by Singh is to be treated as attributable to military service while being posted with I PARA Regiment in Operation PAWAN (Sri Lanka).
• The injury, resulting in 50 per cent disability, was admittedly suffered by Singh in a jungle situated in an operational area in Sri Lanka which is a peace keeping force.
• Therefore, the injury suffered by him is not only attributable to military service, but it was also assessed to have occurred while performing military duty.
• It cannot be contended that the injury suffered by Singh did not occur during the performance of duties in an operational area so as not to treat the same as suffered in an operational area to be treated as war injury, especially when the duties in the operational area were being carried out pursuant to orders issued by the Government of India.
• The claim for the grant of war injury pension will be covered under category E (i) of said instructions, which stipulates the situations as to when the benefit of war injury pension is to be granted as has been granted by the tribunal.

Injury during operation Pawan

The dispute arose from injuries suffered by Naik Nahar Singh while serving with the ‘1 PARA Regiment’ during ‘Operation Pawan’, India’s military mission in Sri Lanka as part of the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF).

According to court records, Singh sustained a perforating injury to his left eye while moving through dense jungle terrain during an operation to search for terrorists.

The injury to the Army man ultimately resulted in a permanent disability assessed at 50 per cent.

The Central government argued that although Singh was serving in an operational area, the injury was caused by bushes and tree branches rather than hostile action.

On that basis, it contended that the disability could not be classified as a battle casualty or war injury and therefore the Army man did not qualify for a war injury pension.

High court rejects government’s stand

The high court rejected that argument, holding that the circumstances under which the injury occurred were inseparable from the Army man’s military duties.

The bench noted that the Army man was carrying out a military operation in a notified operational zone under orders issued by the Government of India.

The fact that the injury to the Army man was caused by vegetation encountered while searching for terrorists did not weaken its connection to military service.

The court observed that the Army man deployed in a jungle to hunt terrorists is exposed to risks inherent in that environment and cannot be expected to separate operational hazards from military duty.

The court rejected the government’s contention that the injury to the Army man was not attributable to military service.

The judges added that the injury had occurred while the Army soldier was performing military duties in an operational area and therefore qualified as a service-related disability.

Why it qalified as war injury

The court relied upon Ministry of Defence instructions dated January 31, 2001, which classify disabilities arising during specially notified military operations under Category E for pensionary benefits.

‘Operation Pawan’ was one such notified operation.

The high court held that Singh’s injury occurred while he was actively participating in duties connected with the operation and therefore fell squarely within the category of war injuries contemplated under the policy.

As a result, the AFT had granted a war injury pension to the Army soldier.

Disability Pension to be rounded off

The Central government also challenged the tribunal’s decision to round off Singh’s disability percentage from 50 per cent to 75 per cent.

Rejecting this contention, the high court referred to the Supreme Court‘s landmark judgment in Union of India vs Ram Avtar, which held that armed forces personnel suffering from disabilities attributable to military service are entitled to the benefit of rounding off while calculating disability pension.

The bench also cited the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Union of India vs Reet MP Singh, which reaffirmed the same principle.

The court concluded that once Singh’s disability had been accepted as attributable to military service, he was entitled to have the disability element rounded off from 50 per cent to 75 per cent for life.

Soldier was medically fit at enrolment

The judges also noted that Singh had been medically examined and declared fit when he joined the Army.

The disability arose only during his service and while the Army man was engaged in operational duties.

Since the injury developed during military service and was directly linked to operational deployment, the court said there was no basis to deny the benefits awarded by the tribunal.

Petition dismissed

Finding no error in the AFT order dated March 29, 2022, the high court refused to interfere and dismissed the Union government’s petition.