JUDGMENT A. L Vaidya, J.—The petitioner Sh. Piar Chand was enrolled as Sepoy in 6th Dogra Regiment on 20th September, 1975. During his military service be was entrusted with the duty of driving Motor Vehicle. The petitioner was discharged on I-1-1982 by the Officer Commanding, 176 Regiment of the basis of having been invalidated out of service by the Medical Board. The medical examination report at the time of discharge of the petitioner has been annexed as Annexure D. According to the petitioner, it was clear from the report that ht was put in medical category EEE and was brought before invalidation medical board The petitioner pleaded that a certificate issued by 161 Base Hospital on 30th September, 1981 clearly showed that the petitioner was found suitable for employment in Civil, which is annexed as Annexure E In so far as the petitioners career was concerned the reliability of the petitioner has been rated as high and the petitioner was shown very keen and energetic with initiative and sense of responsibility, 2. The petitioners simple case has been that he had been agitating for the family pension and he made representation in this behalf through the Sainik Welfare Board and it was on April 8, 1991 that the disability pension in favour of the petitioner was refused. Appeal preferred in this behalf was also not allowed. The action on the part of the respondents had been assailed to be illegal, unwarranted and against the Rules and Regulations of the Military Rules and the fundamental rights of the petitioner as enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Through the present petition preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prayed for the issue of writ of Mandamus against the respondents directing them :— (i) to grant disability pension in favour of the petitioner from the date of his discharge; (ii) the arrears due to the petitioner may also be paid to him ; (iii) the petitioner be awarded adequate compensation for the delay in grant of pension. 3. The respondents have not admitted the claim put in by the petitioner and in their reply have assailed the reliefs asked for by the petitioner on various grounds According to the respondents, petitioner was enrolled as Driver Mechanical Transport by trade as per his desire at the time of enrolment. 3. The respondents have not admitted the claim put in by the petitioner and in their reply have assailed the reliefs asked for by the petitioner on various grounds According to the respondents, petitioner was enrolled as Driver Mechanical Transport by trade as per his desire at the time of enrolment. The petitioner was invalidated out of service on 1st January, 1982 by a duly constituted Invalidating Medical Board due to a disease Epilepsy 345 V-67. It was further pleaded that disability of the petitioner was assessed at 20 per cent but it was neither attributable to nor aggravated by the military service but the said Medical Board. Respondents simple case has been that the petitioner was not entitled for disability pension in terms of Regulation 1/3 of Pension Regulations for the Army 1961, (Part I). 4. There is no dispute between the parties when this petition was argued that under Regulation 1/3 of Pension Regulations, the disability pension was granted only to Army personnel who was invalidated out of the service on account of disability which was attributable to or aggravated by military service and was assessed at 20 per cent or above. There is no dispute on the factual side also that at the time of joining military service, the petitioner was not suffering from this disease of Epilepsy. Ft is also admitted fact that this disease petitioner suffered during his military service. In order to come to a definite conclusion as to the entitlement of the petitioner for disability pension, relevant rules on the basis of which relief asked for can be granted, have to be at first instance to be referred. 5. Para 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, Part I, deals with disability pension, which is reproduced hereunder: "Unless otherwise specifically provided, a disability pension may be granted to an individual who is invalided from service on account of a disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military service and is assessed at 20 per cent or over. The question whether a disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service shall be determined under the rules in Appendix If." 6. The rules in Appendix II to Regulation 173 to Pension Regulations for the Army Part I (1961), relevant for the case are as follows : — Rule 2. The question whether a disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service shall be determined under the rules in Appendix If." 6. The rules in Appendix II to Regulation 173 to Pension Regulations for the Army Part I (1961), relevant for the case are as follows : — Rule 2. "Disablement or death shall be accepted as due to military service provided it is certified that:— (a) the disablement is due to a wound, injury or disease which— (i) is attributable to military service, or (ii) existed before or arose during military service and has been remains aggravated thereby, (b) x x x x Rule 3. There must be a casual connection between disablement and military service for attributable or aggravation to be conceded. Rule 4. In deciding on the time of entitlement all the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, will be taken into account and the benefit of reasonable doubt will be given to the claimant. This benefit will be given more liberally to the claimant in field service cases. Rule 7. In respect of diseases, the following rules will be observed :— (a) Cases, in which it is established that conditions of military service did not determine or contribute to the on set of the disease but influenced the subsequent course of the disease, will fall for acceptance on the basis of aggravation. (b) A disease which has led to an individuals discharge or death will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in service if no note of it was made at the time of the individuals acceptance for military service. However, if medical opinion holds, for reasons to be stated, that the disease could not have been detected on medical examination prior to acceptance for service the disease will not be deemed to have arisen during service, (c) If a disease is accepted as having arisen in service, it must also be established that the conditions of military service determined or contributed to the on set of the disease and that the conditions were due to the circumstances of duty in military service, (d) In considering whether a particular disease is due to military service it is necessary to relate the established facts, in the aetiology of the disease, and of its normal development, to the effect that conditions of service e. g. exposure, stress, climate etc. may have had on its manifestation. may have had on its manifestation. Regard must also be had to the time factor. (Also see Annexure I)." 7. There is a annexure attached to these entitlement rules, wherein diseases affected by climatic conditions, diseases affected by stress and strain, diseases affected by dietary compulsions, diseases affected by training, marching etc, and diseases not normally affected by service have been detailed. The disease Epilepsy has not been entered in any of the classification of diseases referred to above. 8. Petitioners submissions have been that his case was covered under ths aforesaid Regulations and Rules and as such was entitled for the disability pension While, on the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents contended that though the disability of petitioner was assessed at 20 per cent but it was neither attributable to nor aggravated by the military service of the said medical board. Learned Counsels line of the argument has been that before granting pension in favour of the petitioner, it has to be established by the medical evidence that the disease which rendered invalidation for military service was attributable to or aggravated by military service. According to the learned Counsel the petitioners case does not come within the purview of the above referred Regulations and Rules without there being any proof in that regard and accordingly petition cannot be favourably considered and the reliefs as such cannot be granted in his favour. 9. It is not so simple a matter as has been put up by the learned Counsel for the parties. In order to appreciate the submissions put forth by the learned Counsel, not only the interpretation of the aforesaid provision of Regulations and Rules is called for but on merit also it has to be noted that requirement of Regulations and Rules have been established. 10. We had occasion to interpret the above referred Regulations and Rules in case of similar nature,, arising in C W. P. No. 382 of 1992, “Ajit Kumar v. Union of India", decided on September 209 1994. In that case applicability of Regulations and Rules was involved. Petitioner Ajit Kumar in that case was not granted any disability pension as according to the respondents the disability was not attributable to military service and he was found to be suffering from Neurosis (Depressive Reaction was 30%). In that case applicability of Regulations and Rules was involved. Petitioner Ajit Kumar in that case was not granted any disability pension as according to the respondents the disability was not attributable to military service and he was found to be suffering from Neurosis (Depressive Reaction was 30%). The following observations while interpreting the Regulations and Rules are very relevant in order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present writ petition also : " ...Under the circumstances, the only questing requiring consideration of this court is whether the disease suffered by the petitioner is of the nature that entitles him to the pension. Entitlement Rules have been filed as Annexure R-8 and indicate that disablement is accepted as due to military service if it is certified that the disablement is due to a disease which is either attributable to military service or arose during military service and has been and remains aggravated thereby (Rule 2) It is not the petitioners claim that the disease suffered by him is attributable to military service. Indeed, it is common that he suffered the disease because of his family situation, particularly, death of his father and sister and his mother and wife remaining alone at a far distant place. The question requiring consideration, however, is whether the disease which admittedly arose during the military service has been and remains aggravated thereby. Learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to Rules 4 and 7 and the Annexure of these rules to submit that since the disease suffered by the petitioner was a disease affected by stress and strain of service, it has to be considered with a view to grant benefit to the military personnel. Rule 4 proposes that the benefit of reasonable doubt will be given to the claimant and this benefit will be given more liberally to the claimant in field service like the petitioner. As against this, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that in order to consider whether the disease has been and remains aggravated by military service, it is necessary to hold that the disease was attributable to military service. As against this, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that in order to consider whether the disease has been and remains aggravated by military service, it is necessary to hold that the disease was attributable to military service. Referring to Rule 3 of these rules, learned Counsel submitted that there must be casual connection between the disablement and military service for attributability or aggravation and as long as this is not established, it would not be possible to grant any benefit to the petitioner even after taking a very liberal view of the matter. Rule 2, which has been noticed above, is the relevant rule for deciding the entitlement of the petitioner and all other rules referred to during the submissions of the parties only indicate the method of reaching conclusion in relation thereto. Rule 2 gives the clear indication that disablement which may not be directly due to military service is also accepted a due to military service provided certain conditions mentioned in this rule are satisfied One of the conditions is that the disablement should be attributable to military service But this is not the only condition. Even those cases where the disablement may not be attributable to military service, may also be brought within the purview of this rule if the condition mentioned in Clause (a) (ii) remains satisfied. This clause deals with those diseases which arose during military service and have been or remain aggravated thereby. This is an independent clause by itself and, therefore, It is not necessary to hold that the disease should be attributable to military service, If that was so there would be no necessity of this clause and Clause (i) by itself would have been enough. It is well settled that while interpreting a rule, efforts must be made to give meaning to each and every word used therein. Then the word or appearing between Clauses (i) and (ii) clearly indicates that these situations are in the alternative and, therefore, even if one of them is satisfied, the claimant would be entitled to the benefit thereof. In this view of the matter, this court would not agree with the learned Central Government Standing Counsel in regard to the requirement of attributability to military service for purpose of sub-clause (ii) of this rule. The question, however, is whether the disease suffered by the petitioner remains aggravated by his military service. In this view of the matter, this court would not agree with the learned Central Government Standing Counsel in regard to the requirement of attributability to military service for purpose of sub-clause (ii) of this rule. The question, however, is whether the disease suffered by the petitioner remains aggravated by his military service. Rule 3, no doubt, requires a decision on this question to be based on casual connection between the military service and the disease. If the disease remains aggravated because of the military service, the casual connection would be established. But the casual connection is not between the particular work done by the petitioner, but with his service with the military as such and, therefore, the connection will have to be established not with any particular duty performed by the petitioner but with his service as such and while reaching a. decision on this question benefit of doubt, if any, would be given to the claimant-petitioner in view of Rule 4 of these rules.” 11. Now, the material brought on record has to be appreciated keeping in view the aforesaid observations. 12. Annexure RA is the photostat copy of the Medical Board Proceedings invalidating the petitioner. The opinion of the Lt. Col. P. K. Sethi, AMC Classified Specialist (Neurology) of CH (EC) Calcutta dated 13th August, 1981, pertaining to the petitioner as under : "27 years old Arty/Dvr has had 4-5 generalised seizures with loss of consciousness while he was admitted in 151 Base Hospital for acute Tonsillitis. Some of there episodes have been seen by MC and the description is that of grondmal seizures. During his transfer by ward coach to this centre he had a fit in which he feel from upper as he had seizure and injured himself on forehead. A detailed physical examination including that of neurological system does not reveal any abnormality. Investigations : Blood counts, ..analysis, blood sugar, X-ray skull, stool R/E .,.EEG confirms the diagnosis of Epilepsy. This Sep/Dvr is suffering from epilepsy and as such he will not make a fit soldier Recommended to be invalided out in cat EEE. Advised : (i) To take phenobarb 30 mgm TDS. (ii) Not to drive, swim or work near fire or open machinery." 13. The Medical Board which consisted of three Doctors, opined that the petitioner was fit for invalidment and he was opined to be suffering from Epilepsy 20 per cent. Advised : (i) To take phenobarb 30 mgm TDS. (ii) Not to drive, swim or work near fire or open machinery." 13. The Medical Board which consisted of three Doctors, opined that the petitioner was fit for invalidment and he was opined to be suffering from Epilepsy 20 per cent. The Medical Board also made the following observations with respect to the disability suffered by the petitioner whether: (i) It is attributable to service during peace or under field service conditions ? No. or (ii) It has been aggravated thereby and remains so ? No. or (iii) It is not connected with service? Not connected, (iv) Did the disability exist before entering service ? No 14. Part (d) of the report has been filled by the military authorities, which pertained to the petitioner. In one of the columns the authority was required to answer the following querry. “Whether in his opinion the disability was attributable to military field serviced and he should state the reasons underlying his opinion as regards attributability ? To the aforesaid querry the concerned military authority replied as Disability is aggravated deets the severe physical and mental strain or service.* The word deets’ in itself does not lead to in any meaning. Perhaps it is meant as due to and if it is so the opinion of the military authority should read as under: "Disability is aggravated due to severe physical and mental strain of service.” 15. From the aforesaid document Annexure RA, it is established and not disputed also that this disability did not exist before entering service and that disability existed during the service. However, the Medical Board no doubt had opined the petitioners case to be fit for invalidment but if has been very specifically opined as referred to above that disease has not been attributable to service during peace or under field service and has not been aggravated thereby and remains so and from this opinion it is being inferred on behalf of the respondents that disability was not attributable to military service. However, on the other hand military authorities opined as referred to above that disability found in the petitioner was aggravated due to severe physical and mental strain of the service. The Doctors when examined the petitioner had given the aforesaid opinion without disclosing the material relied upon with context to the service conditions of the petitioner in the Army. However, on the other hand military authorities opined as referred to above that disability found in the petitioner was aggravated due to severe physical and mental strain of the service. The Doctors when examined the petitioner had given the aforesaid opinion without disclosing the material relied upon with context to the service conditions of the petitioner in the Army. The opinion of the military authority referred to earlier in this behalf cannot be ignored at all. 16. The aforesaid opinion of the military authority regarding aggravation of disability attributable to military service can find support from the various works put in by eminent experts in this regard which works can safely be referred and taken note of in order to come to a specific and proper conclusion in the background of the facts established in the present case. 17. In order to infer the attributability of disability to the military service and its aggravation due to said service, two aspects are important to be appreciated. The first being the causes which can give rise to the disease of Epilepsy suffered by the petitioner and thereafter keeping those causes in mind, one has to appreciate military service conditions of the petitioner in the background of those causes, 18. The various works of eminent experts which can be taken help of in this regard are described hereunder : I. Clinical Neurology, edited by A. B. Baker, ML D, Second Edition, Volume 3; II. Davidsons Principles and Practice of Medicine, edited by Christopher R. W. Edwards, Edinburgh and IAN A. D Bouchier, Edinburgh. Sixteenth Edition ; III Harrisons Principles of Internal Medicine (12th Edition) Vol. (2) ; IV Encyclopedia Americana, Volume 10. 19. In Clinical Neurology, it has been referred that the entire group of epilepsy is divisible into two chief categories. One includes those patients with a strong genetic factor in the causation of their attacks. The second category includes those patients in whom genetic factors play a minor role and the seizures are attributable to the presence of cerebral or general systemic disease. This disease is the category of symptomatic or acquired epilepsy. In the present case, as per medical report, there is no family history of this disease in the family of the petitioner. Epilepsy could be caused due to the following factors: 1. Congenital defects, 2. Head Injuries, 3. Brain Tumors, 4. Cerebral Infections, 5. Cerebral Degenerative Diseases, 6. This disease is the category of symptomatic or acquired epilepsy. In the present case, as per medical report, there is no family history of this disease in the family of the petitioner. Epilepsy could be caused due to the following factors: 1. Congenital defects, 2. Head Injuries, 3. Brain Tumors, 4. Cerebral Infections, 5. Cerebral Degenerative Diseases, 6. Cerebrovascular Disease, 7. Spontanesous Hypoglycemia, 8. Cardiovascular Syndromes, 9. Intoxications. 20. In Davidsons Principles and Practice of Medicine, causes of Epilepsy have been described as under : “Investigation of patients with epilepsy reveals no clear cause in many cases Primary generalised (idiopathic) epilepsy usually causes tonic-clonic seizures without an aura, or less often, classical absences. In up to 40% of patients there is a family history of epilepsy in a close relative ; heredity being particularly important in primary epilepsies. Generalised epilepsy is occasionally secondary to a definable cause (e. g. anorexia, hvpocalcaeraia), but it is partial seizures which the highest incidence of a detectabled cortical lesion. Partial seizures therefore warrant more intensive investigation, especially if they arise for the first time in adult life." 21. In this very book, factors precipitating seizures have also been described as under : 1. Sleep deprivation, 2. Emotional stress, 3. Physical and mental exhaustion, 4.Infections, Pyrexia, 5. Drug or alcohol ingestion, or withdrawal, 6. Flickering light, visual patterns, proximity to television screens. 7. Uncommon triggers Loud noise, Hot baths Music Reading 22. In Harrisons Principles of Internal Medicine, causes of Epilepsy, in the young adults ranging 18-35 years, described are : 1. Trauma 2. Alcoholism. 3. Brain Tumor. These are the causes apart from being hereditary, it has also been referred that at any age, a variety of medical diseases can produce metabolic disturbances which may present as seizures. Uremia, hepatic failure, hypo-or hypercalcemia, hypo-and hyperglycemia or hypo-and hypernatremia may be associated with myoclonic seizures or generalized tonic-clonic seizures. 23. In The Encyclopedia Americana, causes of Epilepsy are described as under : “Anything that damages nerve cells in the brain can cause epilepsy; a blow to the head ; a brain infection ; improper nourishment of brain cells due to metabolic defects or inadequate supplies of blood to the brain ; kidney disease ; poisons ; or brain tumors. In the majority of cases, epileptic manifestations develop months after the original injury and in some cases, many years later." 24. In the majority of cases, epileptic manifestations develop months after the original injury and in some cases, many years later." 24. Thus, the causes for Epilepsy as opined by the various Doctors have been described above. Epilepsy is a chronic nervous disorder associated with abnormal electrical activity in an injured portion of the brain. To most people, a true epileptic seizure is a convulsion in which the person utters a cry, stiffens, falls, foams at the mouth, and jerks all his limbs. This is the severe type, a maximal seizure A sub-maximal seizure produces movements in only one group of muscles or one part of the body. The great majority of epileptic seizures are not convulsions at all, but consist of abnormal sensations, brief episodes of confusion, periods of unconsciousness, or weird feelings, such as a sensation that everything is getting bigger or smaller, brighter or darker, or louder or quieter. 25. What does Epilepsy mean and what are its causes have been purposely described above in order to appreciate the matter in controversy in a case of an Army personnel with the background of the duties he has to perform. 26. Under Para 173 of Pension Regulations already referred earlier, this disability pension can be granted to an individual who is invalidated from service on account of disability which is attributable to or aggravated by the military service. 27. Under Rule 2 (a) (ii) disablement can be accepted as due to military service, provided it is certified that disablement is due to a wound, injury or disease which existed before or arose during military service and has been remains aggravated thereby. 28. In the present case, the medical evidence pointed out earlier established that this disease of epilepsy insofar as petitioner was concerned arose during the military service and it did not exist before joining the service In order to find out that it has been, remains aggravated thereby as mentioned in the aforesaid Rule 2 (a) (ii), it has now to be seen whether this disease suffered by the petitioner remains aggravated by his military service and in case disease remains aggravated because of military service casual connection between military service and the disease as is the requirement of Rule 3 would be established. 29. 29. Needless to say, as per causes of this disease elaborated above, such causes included Spontanesous Hypoglycemia, sleep deprivation, emotional stress, physical and mental exhaustion, loud noise, inadequate supplies of blood to the brain etc These particular causes pointed out here definitely can be attributed to the military service. 30. Spontanesous Hypoglycemia may occur due to non-taking of food for a considerable period which may lower down the sugar contents of the body, such a situation can be expected to arise at any time during military service especially for soldier like the petitioner who happened to be the mechanical driver and with his service condition he may at time without proper food intake suffer from spontanesous hypoglycemia. 31. Sleep deprivation, emotional stress, physical and mental exhaustion, loud noise can again be attributed to military service. There is every likelihood in this particular service for these situations to arise at any time These circumstance may arise because of military service which may precipitate seizure. 32 The requirement of military service of the petitioner may take him to higher altitude where likelihood of less oxygen being supplied to the brain could result inadequate supply of blood to the brain. This may aggravate the seizure. 33. The aforesaid factor have intentionally been referred inasmuch as the medical examination of the petitioner by the medical board . did not opine any specific cause for the disease. With that background, military authorities very specifically pointed out that disability in the petitioner is aggravated due to severe physical and mental strain of service, Disability of the petitioner on account of this disease, having casual connection with his service condition, in the circumstances cannot be ruled out. 34. Rule 7 already referred to above also can be taken note of in favour of the case of the petitioner. 35. Totality of the circumstances which included report of Doctors, opinion of military authorities and appreciation of the fact of aggravation of disease in the background of military service as per opinion expressed by various experts at first instance bring the case of the petitioner within the ambit of Pension Regulations and Rules described above. Otherwise also, provision of Rule 4 on the basis of the circumstances present in this case cannot be ignored at all inasmuch as the benefit of reasonable doubt if at all appearing shall be taken in favour of the claimant. Otherwise also, provision of Rule 4 on the basis of the circumstances present in this case cannot be ignored at all inasmuch as the benefit of reasonable doubt if at all appearing shall be taken in favour of the claimant. That aspect of the matter also entitled the petitioner for the disablement pension. 36. The petitioner as per record has rendered service without any complaint, and the disease which he suffered from during his service was not self acquired and after the discharge from the service he would be left without any means of livelihood. He has to support family consisting of his parents, wife and children dependent on him. This may not be the sole factor in favourably considering the prayer of the petitioner but definitely in the peculiar circumstance of the case of the petitioner these added factors cannot be ignored also. 37. In view of the foregoing reasons, Annexure K dated 8th April, 1991 is quashed and the present petition is allowed by issuing a writ of Mandamus against the respondents directing them to calculate and pay disability pension to the petitioner in accordance with Pension Regulations and Rules in this behalf. The arrears of pension shall be worked out and paid to the petitioner within six months failing which amount due will be paid with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. In addition, the petitioner shall be entitled to the costs of this petition. Counsel fee is assessed at Rs. 2,500. Petition allowed.