The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by retired Brigadier SKS Rana seeking disability benefits for a gunshot injury sustained in 1973, ruling that the incident was not attributable to military service. The judgment, delivered on February 9, 2026, by a division bench comprising Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, upheld the earlier decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal, emphasizing that the injury occurred during an unauthorized hunting activity rather than official duties.
According to court records, the incident took place on July 9, 1973, while Brigadier Rana was deployed in the operational area associated with Operation Cactus Lily, which spanned from November 25, 1971, to March 13, 1973. During a unit field firing exercise at the Harike Field Firing Range in Punjab, where he was responsible for coordinating range safety arrangements, the officer spotted ducks in nearby marshes near village Sabraon. He loaded his personal firearm, exited his vehicle in an attempt to shoot them, but the birds flew away. While re-entering the jeep without unloading the weapon, he mishandled it, causing an accidental discharge that resulted in the traumatic amputation of his left index finger and partial impairment of his left thumb.
A Court of Inquiry conducted in 1973 detailed the sequence of events, noting that the officer held the gun with his right hand near the trigger guard and his left hand near the muzzle. As he pushed the firearm into the vehicle, the hammer was inadvertently pressed, leading to the firing. The inquiry concluded that the activity was recreational and not connected to his assigned responsibilities.
Brigadier Rana contended that the injury was service-related, as opined by a 1973 medical board, and constituted a permanent disability of approximately 20%, with no potential for improvement and a risk of further deterioration. He argued that his classification in the SHAPE-1 medical category—indicating full fitness—by the Release Medical Board upon his retirement in July 2005 erroneously denied him permanent disability pension benefits. Despite the amputation, he maintained this top-tier category throughout his career, which the court cited as evidence that the injury did not significantly impact his professional capabilities.
The Ministry of Defence countered that the hunting pursuit was unrelated to military service and that the petition, filed in 2016—over a decade after retirement—was untimely. The Armed Forces Tribunal had previously rejected his claim on similar grounds, prompting the appeal to the High Court.
In its ruling, the court observed that Brigadier Rana never challenged his SHAPE-1 categorization during his service tenure and only pursued the matter post-retirement. The bench affirmed that injuries from personal activities, even in proximity to military operations, do not qualify for disability entitlements under relevant pension regulations. This decision reinforces the necessity for a direct nexus between an injury and official duties to establish eligibility for such benefits.
The case underscores broader implications for armed forces personnel regarding the timely documentation and attribution of injuries. It highlights the distinction between operational risks and personal endeavors, potentially guiding future interpretations of disability claims within India’s defense framework.
