Dismissed¶21

Union of India and Others v. B Rama Krishna and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Jul 2025CWP/16736/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

War Injury Pension; War Death Pension; Armed Forces Tribunal; Category E; letter dated 31.01.2001; Operation Rakshak; working party; kerosene oil collection; Government vehicle; gipsy skidded; fracture C5 burst fracture; traumatic quadriplegia; permanent disability; operations specially notified by Government; CWP No.16736 of 2025; High Court of Punjab & Haryana; Justices Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Meenakshi I. Mehta; Union of India v. Ex. Sep. B Rama Krishna; writ petition dismissed; AFT order upheld.

What did the court decide?

No relief to petitioners; writ-petition dismissed and the AFT's grant of War Injury Pension w.e.f 21.09.2012 for life with attendant allowance to respondent No.1 stands upheld. ¶21

Union of India and Others Vs B Rama Krishna and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to petitioners; writ-petition dismissed and the AFT's grant of War Injury Pension w.e.f 21.09.2012 for life with attendant allowance to respondent No.1 stands upheld.

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the disability (fracture C5 burst fracture with traumatic quadriplegia) suffered by respondent No.1 while a member of a working party collecting kerosene oil constitutes a war injury / injury caused during a notified operation, entitling him to War Injury Pension under letter dated 31.01.2001. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

Any injury caused to any person which is of the nature of causing permanent disability or death would invite War Injury Pension or War Death Pension, as the case may be.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Once a working party is detailed for collection of kerosene oil and proceeds on a Government vehicle, it would be part of 'Operation Rakshak'; the work of collecting kerosene oil given for the purpose of 'Operation Rakshak' has to be treated as part and parcel of the said exercise.

¶19

Key takeaways

The AFT correctly interpreted the provisions of letter dated 31.01.2001 and its grant of War Injury Pension w.e.f 21.09.2012 for life along with attendant allowance to respondent No.1 calls for no interference.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Sanjeev Prakash Sharma J.) dismisses Union of India's writ petition challenging the Armed Forces Tribunal's order dated 17.05.2023 granting War Injury Pension to Ex. Sep. B Rama Krishna under letter dated 31.01.2001. Respondent No.1 suffered fracture C5 burst fracture with traumatic quadriplegia (OPTD) while a member of a working party detailed for collection of kerosene oil, when the gipsy occupied by him skidded, at a time when an operation stood notified in the area. Held: once a working party is detailed for collection of kerosene oil and proceeds on a Government vehicle, it is part of 'Operation Rakshak', and collecting kerosene oil given for that operation is part and parcel of the exercise; any injury causing permanent disability or death invites War Injury Pension or War Death Pension. The AFT's grant of War Injury Pension w.e.f 21.09.2012 for life with attendant allowance was correctly made; no interference warranted.

¶1

140

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CWP No.16736 of 2025 Date of Decision: 01.07.2025

¶4

Union of India and others

¶5

…Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

Ex. Sep. B Rama Krishna and another

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA

¶10

Present:Mr. Akash Vashisth, Advocate Central Govt. counsel for the petitioners-UOI.

¶11

¶12

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA J.(Oral)

¶13

The challenge in this writ-petition is to the order dated 17.05.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2-Armed Forces Tribunal (for short ‘the AFT’) whereby the AFT has allowed the application of the applicant (respondent No.1 herein) claiming the War Injury Pension based on the provisions contained under letter dated 31.01.2001.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the AFT has committed an error in treating the injury to have been caused while erred in Category E sub-clause (i)-Operations specifically notified by the Government from time to time. Learned counsel submits that the disability of fracture C5 burst fracture with traumatic quadriplegia (OPTD) occurred in a simple accident while he was a member of working party for collecting kerosene oil and thus, it cannot be said to be a war injury or an injury caused during operation.

¶15

We have considered the submissions carefully related to the record and find that respondent No.2-AFT noticed the provisions of the letter

¶16

SEEMA SHARMA 2025.07.03 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶17

CWP No.16736 of 2025 -2-

¶18

dated 31.01.2001 and found that in terms of Category E war pension would be available if the death or disability arose as a result of factors mentioned therein. One of the factum is disability stood death arising as a result of operation specially notified by the Government from time to time. It is an admitted position that when the applicant-respondent No.1 suffered injuries operation had been notified in the area and while being a member of the working party detailed for collection of the kerosene oil the accident occurred and the gipsy occupied by him skidded.

¶19

In the circumstances, we are of the firm view that once a working party is detailed for collection of kerosene oil and they proceed on a Government vehicle it would be a part of the ‘Operation Rakshak’ and it cannot be said that the work of collecting kerosene oil which is of course given for the purpose of ‘Operation Rakshak’ which is a sort of exercise, has to be treated as a part and parcel of the said exercise. Any injury caused to any person which is of nature of causing permanent disability or death, would invite War Injury Pension or War Death Pension as the case may be.

¶20

Having said so, we find that the AFT has correctly interpreted the said provisions and proceeded to grant War Injury Pension w.e.f 21.09.2012 for life along-with attendant allowance as applicable to the concerned applicant-respondent No.1.

¶21

No interference is, therefore, warranted. Accordingly, the instant writ-petition is dismissed.

¶22

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

¶23

01.07.2025 (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) seema JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No

¶24

SEEMA SHARMA 2025.07.03 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Union of India and Others v. B Rama Krishna and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India and Others v. B Rama Krishna and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ritu and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Amit Kumar Sharma Vs Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Satish Kumar and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Din Dayal Vs State of Haryana and Others

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others

State of Haryana and Others Vs Jitender Kumar