JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - By means of this petition the petitioner is claiming the relief of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to advance to the petitioner the disability benefits admissible under the Army Group Insurance Scheme (AGI Scheme for short) formulated vide SAO 5/6/78. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition are not much in dispute. The petitioner was enrolled in the Army on 23-7-1959 and he was at the relevant time holding the rank of Hawaldar according to which on the completion of 22 years of service he would have had to retire on 22-7-1981. His services were, however, extended for to years w.e.f. 22-7-1981 to 22-7-1983 by the Screening Board. During this extended period of service he was admitted in the Military Hospital on 23-8-1982 and was subsequently transferred to the Military Hospital at Pune. Eventually he was discharged from service on 12-7-1983 with 100% disability on the ground that he was suffering from Pulmonary Tuberculosis. After his discharge the petitioner applied for the benefits admissible under the A. G. I. Scheme. The claim of the petitioner was. however, negatived by the respondent on the ground which may be reproduced in their own words : "Vide sub-paragraph 2 (f) of SAO 5/6/70, amended vide AO 27/01, all ranks invalided out of service with 40% and above disability, due to attributable or non-attributable causes became eligible for Disability benefits with effect from 1-1-1980. However, vide sub-paragraph 2 (f) (ii) of this S. A, O., personnel awarded disability element at the time of proceeding on normal pension or discharge or release were not made eligible for the Disability benefit. This implies that only those individuals whose normal service career is cut short are eligible for the Disability benefits under the Army Group Insurance Scheme. Since you proceeded on pension after completing the normal service limits of 22 years, your normal career was not cut short and hence you are not eligible for the Disability benefits." 3. Having heard the learned counsel for this parties and perused the aforesaid St heme as amended, we are clearly of the opinion that the benefit of the aforesaid A. G. I. Scheme has been wrongfully denied to the petitioner. In order to appreciate the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it will be convenient to extract here the relevant provisions. In order to appreciate the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it will be convenient to extract here the relevant provisions. Clause 2(b) of the Scheme states that the benefits of this Scheme shall be applicable to all serving and future JCO's/OR's including recruits of the Army all Non-Combatants (Enrolled) and re-employed DCOs/OR. We may then extract paragraph 2(f) of the amended Scheme on the basis of which the benefit of the Scheme has been denied to the petitioner. The same reads as follows : "(f) Disability Cover. - All ranks invalided out of service with 40% and above disability, due to `Attributable' or `Non-attributable' causes are eligible or disability benefits in addition to maturity benefits with effect from 10 Jan., 80. The following categories are, however, not eligible for disability cover : (i) Personnel with disability who proceed on pension/discharge/ release at their own request : (ii) Personnel whose disability is detected and are awarded/disability/ element at the time of proceeding on normal pension discharge/ release. (iii) P & T deputationists invalided out of military service but continue in service in their parent department on reversion from Army." 4. Reliance was mainly placed in the counter affidavit on clause (ii) which provides that personnel whose disability is detected and are awarded disability element at the time of proceeding on normal pension/discharge/release shall not be eligible for disability cover admissible under the Scheme. 5. On the facts which are riot in dispute, there is no manner of doubt that the petitioner's case was not covered by the above clause as disability was in his case not detected at the time of his proceeding on normal pension/discharge/ release. It is admitted that this disability was not detected by the authorities during normal tenure of the petitioner of 22 years before he was due to retire in July, 1981. The disability was discovered during the extended period when the petitioner was hospitalised in August. 1982 whereas he was finally discharged on 12-7-1983. It will, therefore, be seem that disability which eventually led to the petitioner's discharge was detected neither in July, 1981 the date on which but for the extension granted to him he would have proceeded on normal pension nor even in July 83 when he was discharged from service. That being so, none of the eventualities contemplated under clause (f) was attracted in the present case. That being so, none of the eventualities contemplated under clause (f) was attracted in the present case. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the petitioner was clearly entitled to the financial assistance contemplated under aforesaid A. G. I. Scheme. We do agree with the interpretation given by the respondents to clause (f) by restricting its application only to those personnel whose normal service career is cut short by the disability. 6. It must be remembered that the benefit of Scheme has been specifically extended not only to the serving and future JCO's/ORs but also to the re-employed JCO's/ORs. That being so, the petitioner having been granted extension in July, 1981 would be entitled to the benefit of the Scheme, even if his service career was cut short while he was on extension. Thus in either view of the matter petitioner was clearly covered by AGI Scheme. He has been denied the same on a patent misconception of law. 7. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are directed to pay to the petitioner the disability benefits admissible to him under the AGI Scheme referred to above at the earliest. No order as to costs.