{"id":400064,"date":"2026-10-30T11:00:33","date_gmt":"2026-10-30T05:30:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=400064"},"modified":"2026-10-30T11:05:34","modified_gmt":"2026-10-30T05:35:34","slug":"war-injury-pension-supreme-court-operation-rakshak-army-veteran","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/30\/war-injury-pension-supreme-court-operation-rakshak-army-veteran\/","title":{"rendered":"SC upholds war injury pension for Kargil veteran; declares &#8216;what a policy says, it is and not what is in the imagination of the policymaker&#8217;"},"content":{"rendered":"<div style=\"text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;\">\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Supreme Court:<\/span> In a civil appeal concerning the grant of war injury pension in place of disability pension, the Division Bench comprising <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ<\/span>., examined whether rheumatoid arthritis developed by an Army personnel during his posting at Kargil under Operation Rakshak qualified for War Injury Pension under Category E(<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">i<\/span>), Part II, Para 4.1 of the Ministry of Defence Policy Letter dated 31 January 2001.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court held that pensionary benefits could not be denied by adopting a restrictive interpretation unsupported by the language of the policy or the relevant notification. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Union of India&#8217;s appeal, upholding the concurrent decisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal and the High Court, and directed the Government to expressly clarify whether the prescribed pensionary benefits would apply whenever operations are notified under Category E(<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">i<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Background<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The respondent was enrolled in the Indian Army on 30 December 1996. During his posting at Kargil between 13 July 2003 and 6 July 2005, he was diagnosed with seropositive rheumatoid arthritis. He was subsequently diagnosed with 2 additional spinal disabilities.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Upon his discharge from service on 31 January 2013, the Release Medical Board assessed his disabilities at 70 per cent, rounded off to 75 per cent for life, and acknowledged that they were aggravated by military service. He was consequently granted disability pension comprising the service element and disability element.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Approximately 6 years after his discharge, the respondent approached the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), seeking war injury pension in place of the disability pension granted for rheumatoid arthritis. He contended that the disability had developed during his posting at Kargil under Operation Rakshak and therefore fell within Category E(<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">i<\/span>), Part II, Para 4.1 of the Ministry of Defence Policy Letter dated 31 January 2001, which covers operations specially notified by the Government from time to time.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The AFT allowed his application on 8 April 2024, holding that the disability had originated during his posting at Kargil and that the claim was covered by the relevant policy. The High Court upheld the decision on 11 August 2025. The Union of India challenged these concurrent findings before the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Arguments of the Parties<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Union of India<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Union contended that Operation Rakshak was not an operation specially notified for the purposes of Category E(<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">i<\/span>). It argued that the provision could not be interpreted so broadly as to render the other sub-categories of Category E redundant or entitle every Army personnel posted in Jammu and Kashmir under Operation Rakshak to War Injury Pension.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Union also relied on Army Order 1 of 2003, particularly Para 44, to contend that Battle Casualty reports were not initiated in ongoing operations such as Operation Rakshak and Operation Rhino.<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Respondent<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The respondent argued that Operation Rakshak fell within the expression &#8220;operations specially notified by the Government from time to time&#8221;. Since his disability originated during his posting at Kargil, he submitted that the benefit of war injury pension was available under the policy.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">He also relied on Army Order 1 of 2003, including Appendix A, to contend that Battle Casualties could include illnesses caused by climatic conditions while operating along the International Border or Line of Control.<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Analysis and Decision<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court examined the scheme of Category E under the Ministry of Defence Policy Letter, which covers death or disability arising from specified war-like situations, including enemy action in international war, border skirmishes, mine-related operations and acts of violence by extremists.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court noted that Category E has nine sub-categories, of which (a) to (h) are egregious situations akin to war or extreme violence, and that the instances are not exhaustive. Sub-category E(i), concerning operations specially notified by the Government, was held to be enabling in nature, intended to give flexibility to the defence administration. It provides flexibility to the defence administration to extend pensionary benefits to additional operations that may not fall squarely within the preceding sub-categories.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court observed that once an operation is notified, Category E(<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">i<\/span>) is attracted unless the policy or the notification indicates otherwise. In the present case, the Ministry of Defence had not established any textual basis for excluding Operation Rakshak from the provision.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court rejected an interpretation that would impose restrictions not expressed in the policy, observing that when the language of the policy is unrestrictive, it is not the burden of the Court to limit its application through an interpretative process, particularly when the policy relates to pensionary benefits, and that a liberal interpretation is compelling.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">While recognising that the formulation of defence policies falls within the domain of the defence administration, the Court held that such policies must clearly articulate their scope, application, and conditions of eligibility.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Where a dispute arises over the applicability of a policy, the primary burden rests on the policymaker to demonstrate the circumstances in which the benefit is or is not available. It was observed that ordinarily, the policymaker&#8217;s prescription will not be interfered with unless it is beyond the range of reasonable meaning of the plain language. However, if the policymaker interprets its own policy against the plain language, or in a discriminatory, arbitrary or irrational manner, or against the policy&#8217;s object, Courts will disregard that interpretation. The Court added that courts declare &#8216;what a policy says, it is&#8217;. The Court found it unnecessary to rely on Army Order 1 of 2003, observing that it created more confusion than clarity in the present dispute. Since the Ministry of Defence Policy Letter did not distinguish between notifications under Category E(<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">i<\/span>) for the purposes of pensionary benefits, such benefits could not be denied on the basis of an exclusion that the policy did not prescribe.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court also expressed concern over the continuing uncertainty regarding the applicable rules, regulations, instructions, and policies governing the armed forces. It observed that the Ministry of Defence should issue comprehensive and clearly identifiable subordinate legislation to promote fairness and good governance.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court dismissed the Union of India&#8217;s appeal and declined to interfere with the concurrent decisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal and the High Court.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court further clarified that whenever the Government notifies operations under Category E(<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">i<\/span>), it must expressly state whether the pensionary benefits contemplated under Para 4.1 of the Ministry of Defence Policy Letter dated 31 January 2001 will apply to those operations.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">[<span style=\"font-weight: bold; color: #632423;\"><span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Union of India<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Narender Kumar<\/span>, Civil Appeal No.-013952&#8212;2026, decided on 28-10-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p style=\"font-style: italic;\">Upholding the grant of pension to an Army veteran whose rheumatoid arthritis developed during his posting at Kargil under Operation Rakshak, the Court directed the Government to expressly clarify the applicability of pensionary benefits when notifying operations under Category E(i) of the Policy dated 31 January 2001.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67512,"featured_media":400067,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[118349,6301,118345,118347,27374,118348,118346,118344,5363,118343,46414],"class_list":["post-400064","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-2026-insc-1166","tag-armed-forces-tribunal","tag-army-veteran-pension","tag-category-ei","tag-disability-pension","tag-kargil-posting","tag-ministry-of-defence-policy-letter","tag-operation-rakshak","tag-supreme-court","tag-union-of-india-v-narender-kumar","tag-war-injury-pension"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v25.1 (Yoast SEO v28.2) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>War Injury Pension: Supreme Court Dismisses Union&#039;s Challenge | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Supreme Court upholds war injury pension for an Army veteran posted at Kargil and asks the Centre to specify benefits when notifying operations.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/30\/war-injury-pension-supreme-court-operation-rakshak-army-veteran\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"SC upholds war injury pension for Kargil veteran; declares &#039;what a policy says, it is and not what is in the imagination of the policymaker&#039;\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court upholds war injury pension for an Army veteran posted at Kargil and asks the Centre to specify benefits when notifying operations.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/30\/war-injury-pension-supreme-court-operation-rakshak-army-veteran\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-10-30T05:30:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-10-30T05:35:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/War-Injury-Pension-Supreme-Court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Apoorva\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"SC upholds war injury pension for Kargil veteran; declares &#039;what a policy says, it is and not what is in the imagination of the policymaker&#039;\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Apoorva\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"NewsArticle\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/30\\\/war-injury-pension-supreme-court-operation-rakshak-army-veteran\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/30\\\/war-injury-pension-supreme-court-operation-rakshak-army-veteran\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Apoorva\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9\"},\"headline\":\"SC upholds war injury pension for Kargil veteran; declares &#8216;what a policy says, it is and not what is in the imagination of the policymaker&#8217;\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-10-30T05:30:33+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-10-30T05:35:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/30\\\/war-injury-pension-supreme-court-operation-rakshak-army-veteran\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1070,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/30\\\/war-injury-pension-supreme-court-operation-rakshak-army-veteran\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/War-Injury-Pension-Supreme-Court.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"2026 INSC 1166\",\"Armed Forces Tribunal\",\"Army veteran pension\",\"Category E(i)\",\"disability pension\",\"Kargil posting\",\"Ministry of Defence Policy Letter\",\"Operation Rakshak\",\"Supreme Court\",\"Union of India v. Narender Kumar\",\"War Injury Pension\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"Supreme Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/30\\\/war-injury-pension-supreme-court-operation-rakshak-army-veteran\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/30\\\/war-injury-pension-supreme-court-operation-rakshak-army-veteran\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/30\\\/war-injury-pension-supreme-court-operation-rakshak-army-veteran\\\/\",\"name\":\"War Injury Pension: Supreme Court Dismisses Union's Challenge | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/30\\\/war-injury-pension-supreme-court-operation-rakshak-army-veteran\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/30\\\/war-injury-pension-supreme-court-operation-rakshak-army-veteran\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/War-Injury-Pension-Supreme-Court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-10-30T05:30:33+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-10-30T05:35:34+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9\"},\"description\":\"Supreme Court upholds war injury pension for an Army veteran posted at Kargil and asks the Centre to specify benefits when notifying operations.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/30\\\/war-injury-pension-supreme-court-operation-rakshak-army-veteran\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/30\\\/war-injury-pension-supreme-court-operation-rakshak-army-veteran\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/30\\\/war-injury-pension-supreme-court-operation-rakshak-army-veteran\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/War-Injury-Pension-Supreme-Court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/War-Injury-Pension-Supreme-Court.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"War Injury Pension Supreme Court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/30\\\/war-injury-pension-supreme-court-operation-rakshak-army-veteran\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"SC upholds war injury pension for Kargil veteran; declares &#8216;what a policy says, it is and not what is in the imagination of the policymaker&#8217;\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9\",\"name\":\"Apoorva\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Apoorva\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/scc-editor\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"War Injury Pension: Supreme Court Dismisses Union's Challenge | SCC Times","description":"Supreme Court upholds war injury pension for an Army veteran posted at Kargil and asks the Centre to specify benefits when notifying operations.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/30\/war-injury-pension-supreme-court-operation-rakshak-army-veteran\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"SC upholds war injury pension for Kargil veteran; declares 'what a policy says, it is and not what is in the imagination of the policymaker'","og_description":"Supreme Court upholds war injury pension for an Army veteran posted at Kargil and asks the Centre to specify benefits when notifying operations.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/30\/war-injury-pension-supreme-court-operation-rakshak-army-veteran\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-10-30T05:30:33+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-10-30T05:35:34+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/War-Injury-Pension-Supreme-Court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Apoorva","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"SC upholds war injury pension for Kargil veteran; declares 'what a policy says, it is and not what is in the imagination of the policymaker'","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Apoorva","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"NewsArticle","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/30\/war-injury-pension-supreme-court-operation-rakshak-army-veteran\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/30\/war-injury-pension-supreme-court-operation-rakshak-army-veteran\/"},"author":{"name":"Apoorva","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9"},"headline":"SC upholds war injury pension for Kargil veteran; declares &#8216;what a policy says, it is and not what is in the imagination of the policymaker&#8217;","datePublished":"2026-10-30T05:30:33+00:00","dateModified":"2026-10-30T05:35:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/30\/war-injury-pension-supreme-court-operation-rakshak-army-veteran\/"},"wordCount":1070,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/30\/war-injury-pension-supreme-court-operation-rakshak-army-veteran\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/War-Injury-Pension-Supreme-Court.webp","keywords":["2026 INSC 1166","Armed Forces Tribunal","Army veteran pension","Category E(i)","disability pension","Kargil posting","Ministry of Defence Policy Letter","Operation Rakshak","Supreme Court","Union of India v. Narender Kumar","War Injury Pension"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","Supreme Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/30\/war-injury-pension-supreme-court-operation-rakshak-army-veteran\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/30\/war-injury-pension-supreme-court-operation-rakshak-army-veteran\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/30\/war-injury-pension-supreme-court-operation-rakshak-army-veteran\/","name":"War Injury Pension: Supreme Court Dismisses Union's Challenge | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/30\/war-injury-pension-supreme-court-operation-rakshak-army-veteran\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/30\/war-injury-pension-supreme-court-operation-rakshak-army-veteran\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/War-Injury-Pension-Supreme-Court.webp","datePublished":"2026-10-30T05:30:33+00:00","dateModified":"2026-10-30T05:35:34+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9"},"description":"Supreme Court upholds war injury pension for an Army veteran posted at Kargil and asks the Centre to specify benefits when notifying operations.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/30\/war-injury-pension-supreme-court-operation-rakshak-army-veteran\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/30\/war-injury-pension-supreme-court-operation-rakshak-army-veteran\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/30\/war-injury-pension-supreme-court-operation-rakshak-army-veteran\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/War-Injury-Pension-Supreme-Court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/War-Injury-Pension-Supreme-Court.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"War Injury Pension Supreme Court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/30\/war-injury-pension-supreme-court-operation-rakshak-army-veteran\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"SC upholds war injury pension for Kargil veteran; declares &#8216;what a policy says, it is and not what is in the imagination of the policymaker&#8217;"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9","name":"Apoorva","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Apoorva"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/War-Injury-Pension-Supreme-Court.webp","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/400064","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67512"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=400064"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/400064\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":400066,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/400064\/revisions\/400066"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/400067"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=400064"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=400064"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=400064"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}