As Army Rebuts Kargil Hero’s Claims, Lawyer Says Problems Ignored

The 49-year-old war hero has been fighting for his pension since his retirement in 2005.

Kargil War hero Digendra Kumar has had to fight for his pension since his retirement in 2005.

(Photo: The Quint)

The Indian Army has responded to Kargil War hero and Maha Vir Chakra awardee Digendra Kumar, who has been fighting for his pension since his retirement in 2005, saying that his pending “grievance” can only be considered if he applies in writing.

This followed The Quint’s 20 July article, titled ‘‘Can’t Trust the Army’: Kargil War Hero Recounts Fight for Pension’, in which Kumar narrated his experiences of fighting with the system since 2005 for a disability pension that he was entitled to. He eventually won the battle in 2010 when the Armed Forces Tribunal that he approached ruled in his favour.

But even today, 49-year-old Kumar, who sustained five bullet wounds during the Battle of Tololing, claims he is not being given the full pension amount, as the service element is being given for 15 years – and not for 20 years due to him.

The Indian Army, in a rebuttal to the story dated 23 June, asserted that it “proudly recognises sacrifices, courage and valour” of Kumar, adding that various requests of the veteran have been already been resolved, even “though he was not eligible as he proceeded on premature retirement at his own request on compassionate grounds”. The Army claimed that he has been given:

• Full financial grant of Rs 13,00,000/- as part of Kargil Package.
• War Injury element (WIE) @ 80% from the date of his discharge (01 Aug 2005).
• Rounding off benefit @ 100 % (80% rounding off) for life from the date of his discharge.

It went on to say that to settle the grievance of revised pension fixation under OROP, even though it is not applicable to persons proceeding on premature discharge, Kumar had been “advised to submit a written application to Rajputana Rifles records so that his plea could be considered”.

The written representation is still awaited. Digendra Kumar, rather than submitting the application has gone to the media to address the issue. Digendra Kumar is required to follow the due process and not solicit improper intervention by media into the due process.

Public Relations Officer, Army

What Do Kumar and His Lawyer Have to Say to the Rebuttal?

Responding to this rebuttal, Kumar told The Quint, “It’s been 13 years, but I have still not been given complete justice. The fact remains – I was denied disability pension from 2005 to 2010. And even after, I have been denied the full pension.”

Meanwhile, pointing out that one needs to be mindful of the ordeals that Kumar had to go through to get his due, his lawyer Colonel (retired) SB Singh asserted that “the army PRO should not have brushed aside the genuine grievances of such a decorated soldier, in usual self-righteous manner.”

He has been paid after long-drawn court battles. Should a need arise for intervention of courts in such cases, is the question?

Colonel (retired) SB Singh, Kumar’s lawyer, to <b>The Quint</b>

On the question of sending an application to the authorities, Singh said:

The PRO himself agrees that for full pension, he should send [an] application to the authorities. Is there a need for such an application? Why cannot authorities act without awaiting application from him?

Colonel (retired) SB Singh, Kumar’s lawyer

He then detailed how even the Armed Forces Tribunal, ruling in Kumar’s favour in the pension case in 2010, had directed the “respondents to be sensitive in such cases and had imposed a cost of Rs 30,000 for lack of sensitivity on the part of non-applicants”.

Regarding the war injury element, SB Singh also mentioned how a fair share of money due to Kumar was deducted after 2010, following which another case was filed in the Tribunal.

Thus, granting once and then deductions and forcing to approach the court, I feel was inappropriate… I also wish to add that delay in payment of dues to a wounded soldier obviously is very taxing mentally as well as physically and must be avoided. Thus, the system could be further refined to avoid recurrence of such cases [sic].

Colonel (retired) SB Singh, Kumar’s lawyer