Almost four decades after an Indian Special Forces soldier sustained eye injuries on being hit by a tree branch while carrying out anti-terrorist operations in Sri Lanka, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) granting him war injury pension and consequential benefits.“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 the Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka not to be attributed to the military service,” the bench of Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Deepak Manchanda observed in their order of May 22.The soldier, Naik Nahar Singh was serving with the First Battalion of the Parachute Regiment in Operation Pawan as part of the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) in Sri Lanka when he was injured. AFT had earlier granted him war injury pension, but the order was challenged by the government before the high court.The government had denied him war injury pension, contending that his injuries resulted from tree branches and he should have been careful while discharging the duties in an operational zone. Hence, the same cannot be treated as battle causality/injury“A soldier who was searching for terrorists in a jungle sustained injuries in the eyes due to bushes and branches of the trees, the contention of the petitioners that the said injury cannot be attributed to military service, cannot be accepted,” the bench ruled while observing that the case is covered under Category E(i) of the pension rules for determining death or disability benefits for operations specially notified by the Government from time to time.The injury, namely resulting in 50 per cent disability, was admittedly suffered by the soldier in a jungle situated in an operational area in Sri Lanka which is a peace-keeping mission. Therefore, the injury suffered by him is not only attributable to military service, but it was also assessed to have occurred while performing bona fide military duty, the bench said.“Once this fact has been conceded, it cannot be contended that the injury suffered by the soldier 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 bench ruled.