Judgment :- K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. The petitioner has approached this court challenging Exts. P2, P4, and P7 orders. He seeks grant of disability pension. 2. The petitioner was enrolled in military service in E.M.E. on 20.9.68. He was boarded out on medical ground categorising Mm in "EEE" category on 24.11.78. The reason for discharge was that he had developed "Neurosis (300)". The petitioner claimed disability pension. It was rejected as per Ext. P2 on the reason that the illness and the disability therefrom is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. A statutory appeal was filed against Ext. P3. It was rejected in Ext. P4 order without showing any reason. That was challenged in O.P. 10848/87. Setting aside Ext. P4 the appellate authority was directed to consider the matter afresh. In compliance with that direction, orders afresh was issued is Ext. P7 again rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the same ground that "ID Neurosis is a mental disease and is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service". 3. It is a admitted case that while the petitioner was serving in Avadi, he sustained injuries while performing duties. It is admitted in Ex!. P7 that the petitioner "was admitted to and treated at Military Hospital, Avady from 20th August 1977 to 29th August 1977 for incised wound scalp". It is further admitted in the counter affidavit that this was "due to injury sustained by him while he was performing an official task". 4. The petitioner was in robust health while he was enrolled in the military service. Had there been any defect naturally he would not have been enrolled. The reason of the charge is 'Neurosis (300)'. That was in 1978. During 1977, he sustained ahead injury, is an admitted fact. There is no document nor any pleading that the disability .the petitioner has sustained or the disease that the petitioner has contracted, cannot be due to the injury he sustained on his head while on duty. 5. The grant of disability pension is governed by R.173 of the Pension Regulations which provides that "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% or over". 6. 5. The grant of disability pension is governed by R.173 of the Pension Regulations which provides that "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% or over". 6. In santokh Singh Gill v. Union of India (1992 (6) S.L.R.749), claim for grant of disability pension on the ground of neurosis was examined. Quoting paragraph 423 from a Manual which governs how the attributability shall be determined the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that, "On a perusal of the above, it is apparent that any disease which leads to an individual's discharge from service is deemed to have arisen in service, if no note of it was made at the time of his acceptance for service in the armed forces". Admittedly, no note regarding any problem of neurosis was noticed at the time of petitioner's enrollment. Therefore, the disability has to be attributed to the military service or has to be taken as it was aggravated by the military service. 7. This court had an occasion to consider the claim for special family pension. There, the deceased died due to cardiac arrest while on duty and it was contended by the authorities that it was not attributable to military service nor was it aggravated by military service. Considering that issue, this Court held in Madhavi Amma v. Union of India (1991 (2) KLT 545) that, "No evidence have been adduced to show that the death was occurred for reasons not attributable to his duty. It has to be presumed that the cause of death of the deceased was attributable to his employment (Military service) or aggravated by military service. The respondents have not produced any material to show that the cause of death was not connected with military service or aggravation is not attributable to the service". 8. In yet another case, eligibility for disability pension was considered by this Court in Ramachandran Nair v. The Controller of Defence Accounts (ILR 1996 (1) Kerala 168). In that case, the Competent was discharged due to disability arising out of anxiety state (300)'. It was contended by the authority that such a disease was not attributable to the military service or it was a constitutional disease not connected with his service. In that case, the Competent was discharged due to disability arising out of anxiety state (300)'. It was contended by the authority that such a disease was not attributable to the military service or it was a constitutional disease not connected with his service. His lordship Justice Sreedharan, J. (as he then was) held that, "Petitioner was physically and mentally found fit to enter military service. It was only on the basis of the medical examination and other tests he was enrolled on 21st July 1964. While he was working in the workshop in Siliguri he developed anxiety state. That state was the result, arisen from the service in military. If the illness has any casual connection with the service conditions, then the said disability should be considered as one attributable to military service. No Medical Board certified with reasons that the disability now found on the petitioner was not attributable to or aggravated by military service. In such a situation, I have no hesitation in holding that the disability which resulted in the discharge of the petitioner from military service was one attributable to the military service. Consequently, he is entitled to the disability pension from the date of his discharge". This decisions are applicable to the case on hand on the basis of the facts disclosed. In Ramachandran Nair's Case, the deceased's 'anxiety state' earned a development while he was in service without any other reason. In the case of the petitioner, 'Neurosis (300)' developed while in service. Admittedly, there was an accident which resulted in head injury in 1977. The neurosis developed in 1978. There is no medical report or even an averment that this disease developed in the petitioner cannot be by reason of the injury he sustained on his head. He was in robust health when he was enrolled in military service. Therefore, the disease by which he was disabled and discharged, developed while in service and following the views of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and of this Court in the decisions mentioned above, it has to be taken that the disability the petitioner suffers is attributable to the military service or aggravated by the military service. 9. Accordingly, he is entitled to disability pension in accordance with the rule taking into account the span of service he spent in military. Exts. 9. Accordingly, he is entitled to disability pension in accordance with the rule taking into account the span of service he spent in military. Exts. P2, P4 and P7 are quashed and the 2nd respondent is directed to grant the petitioner military pension in accordance with the rules. O.P. is allowed as above. No costs.