Devinder Gupta ( 1 ) COUNSEL for the parties say that the pleadings are complete and matter may be heard today . ( 2 ) THE petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order annexure P-2 dated 17. 1. 1992 rejecting this claim for the disability pension and has sought direction against the respondents to grant him the disability pension w. e. f. 28. 9. 1990 with all other consequential reliefs. ( 3 ) PETITIONER was enrolled in the Indian Air Force on 30. 3. 1988 after he was declared fit by the competent medical authority , he was invalidated and medically boarded out with effect from 26. 9. 1990. He was found to be disabled due MITRAL VALUE PROLAPSE WITH MODERATE MITRAL REGURGITATION 394 with 30% disability for two years. Petitioner, thus, had put in a total of 2 years and 181 days service at the time of discharge. His case for disability pension was taken up with the Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad on 7. 6. 1991 through Deputy- Controller Defence Accounts (AF), New Delhi and it is the respondents case that after due consideration by CCDA (P), through dated 24. 10. 1991 the case for grant of disability pension was rejected as the disease from which the petitioner suffered, during service in Air Force, was stated to be neither attributable, nor aggravated by the Air Force service. It is alleged that the decision was conveyed to the petitioner on 17. 1. 1992, who was advised to prefer an appeal in case he felt aggrieved against the said order. Instead of preferring an appeal,m the petitioner filed this writ petition. Petitioner w as paid only a sum of Rs. 2,400. 00 on account of Invalid Gratuity . ( 4 ) PETITIONER s grievance is that he was assured by the Medical Board as well as by the Air Force authorities that he would be granted disability- pension for 30% disability -. His case was duly recommended by the Medical Board which, medically examined him but the Authority , who took decision not to grant pension acted arbitrarily and without jurisdiction. There was a clear cut opinion rendered by the Medical Board that the petitioner s disease was aggravated because of the stress and strain in the Air Force. His case was duly recommended by the Medical Board which, medically examined him but the Authority , who took decision not to grant pension acted arbitrarily and without jurisdiction. There was a clear cut opinion rendered by the Medical Board that the petitioner s disease was aggravated because of the stress and strain in the Air Force. Without any other material on record and without further medical examination, the decision to reject the petitioner s claim for disability pension by CCDA (P) is liable to be quashed and set aside being arbitrary and irrational. ( 5 ) THE respondents version is that the Medical Board is required to give its findings and recommendations on entitlement and assessment in all cases of disability. Medical Board is not a statutory authority and their recommendations are liable to be reviewed and revised by the Director General, Armed Forces, Medical Services. Since the Medical Boards functioning in various military hospitals, cannot be expected to be uniform in their assessment of disability and also on the point that whether the disease is attributable or aggravated by the military services, the joint Director Medical Services, who is an officer under Director General, Armed Forces Medical Services, attached as Medical Adviser (Pension) in the office of the Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad ensures consistency in assessment of disabilities. The Joint Director Armed Forces, who is a specialist ensures uniform application of the entitlement of the rules and provisions contained in the guide to medical officers. All cases are scrutinized under the Entitlement Rules to Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Entitlement Rules) circulated through Government of India, Ministry of Defence letter No. 1 (1)/81 /pen-C, dated 22. 11. 1983. In the case of the petitioner, it is not disputed that the Medal Board had rendered an opinion an opinion that the petitioner s disease, namely, MITRAL VALUE PROLAPSE WITH MODERATE MITRAL REGURGITATION 394 was aggravated by the stress and strain of military service and was assessed at 30% for two years but on claim being forwarded to CCDA (P), Allahabad for adjudication, the same was rejected by CDA (P) in consultation with the Joint Director. Armed Forces Medical Services, namely. Medical Adviser (Pension) and it was opined that the disease was constitutional and not connected with senice. Armed Forces Medical Services, namely. Medical Adviser (Pension) and it was opined that the disease was constitutional and not connected with senice. Thus, the claim w as rejected, the same according to the respondents has been arrived at by the Competent Authority, in accordance with the Entitlement Rules and no interference is called for in the decision in this writ petition. ( 6 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and have been taken through the entire record. ( 7 ) PHOTO copy of the proceedings of the invalidating Medical Board has been placed on record. Part B of the report mentions the circumstances of the case that the petitioner joined the unit on 17. 12. 1988 with his medical condition as AYE. It is also recorded that he was not suffering from any disability. Category AYE, admittedly is a perfect medical condition. The circumstances of the case further state that the petitioner s daily routine involved occupational stress and strain and in the opinion of the Commanding Officer disability w as aggravated by stress and strain of military service. After noticing the entire case history, medical condition and the information supplied by the Commanding Officer classified the Specialist (Medicine and Cardiologist CH SC PUNE recorded the following opinion: OPINION OF LT COL CS NATH AMC CLASSIFIED SPECIALIST (MEDICINE) AND CARDIOLOGIST CH SC PUNE ON DATED 13-6-90 SUMMARY AND OPINION OPINION:- Young Airman with 2 years service has MVP with moderate Mitral Regurgitation a cond ition which is likely to deteriorate with course of time and which requires life-long sheltered employment. Therefore he is recommended to be invalided out of service in Medical Category EEE (E) Infective endocarditis Prophylaxis. " ( 8 ) LT. Col. V. N. Venugopalan of Armed Medical Core, the President of the Medical Board, on 26. 7. 1990 further opined that the disability was aggravated by stress and strain of military services. While recommending the petitioner to be invalidated out on medical grounds, it was duly recommended that disability was to the extent of 3 0%, as compared w ith a healthy person of the same age and sex. ( 9 ) IT is not in dispute that it was on the basis of the aforementioned recommendation of the Medical Board that thepetitioner was invalided out and the case was thereafter referred to CDA (P) for grant of disability pension and on 24. 10. ( 9 ) IT is not in dispute that it was on the basis of the aforementioned recommendation of the Medical Board that thepetitioner was invalided out and the case was thereafter referred to CDA (P) for grant of disability pension and on 24. 10. 1991 the Accounts Officer (Pension) informed the Deputy Controller of Defence Accounts (Air Force), New Delhi, of the following decision: on adjudication of disability pension claim in respect of the above individual, it has been decided that his disability vis. Mitral Valve Prolapse with Moderate from which he suffered during his service in the Air Force and on which his claim is based is neither attributable nor aggravated by Air Force service and hence I. C. is rejected. " No reasons are assigned in the aforementioned order as to what prompted CDA (P), the adjudicating authority , in coming to a different conclusion than the one reached by the Medical Board. The Medical Board admittedly reached to this conclusion on medically examining the petitioner and on the basis of the circumstances, which were brought to its notice that duties assigned to the petitioner involved exceptional stress and strain. In other words,, it was a daily routine to which the petitioner was subjected, during his service, which required exceptional stress and strain and the decease was aggravated by such stress and strain. Medical Board admittedly had also an occasion to examine the petitioner, which benefit was not available to CDA (P ). In case the CDA (P) had to come to a different conclusion, it was but necessary for him to have assigned valid and cogent reason for coming to a different conclusion. ( 10 ) RULE 5 of the Entitlement Rules says that the approach to the question of entitlement shall be based on the presumption that a member is presumed to have been in sound physical and mental condition upon entering sen ice except as to the physical disabilities noted or recorded at the time of entrance and in the event of his subsequently being discharged from service on medical grounds, any deterioration in his health, which as taken place is due to service. The rule reads: "5. The rule reads: "5. The approach to the question of entitlement to casualty pensionaryawards and evaluation of disabilities shall be based on the following presumptions:- Prior to and during service (a) A member is presumed to have been in sound physical and mental condition upon entering sen ice except as to physical disabilities noted or recorded at the time of entrance. (b) In the event of his subsequently being discharged from service on medical grounds any deterioration in his hearth which has taken place is due to service. Rule 6 also requires the adjudicating authority to accept disablement to be due to military service, provided it is certified by appropriate medical authority that the disease is attributable to military service. Rule 8 also requires the certification by the appropriate medical authority on the attributability or aggravation to be accepted, even in case of casual connection between disablement and military service. Rule 6 and 8 deserve to be quoted in extenso: 6. Disablement or death shall be accepted as due to military service provided it is certified by appropriate medical authority that: (a) the disablement is due to a wound, injury or disease which - (i) is attributable to military sendee, or (ii) existed before or arose during military service and has been and remains aggravated thereby. This will also include the precipitating/hastening of the onset of a disability. (b) The death was due to or hastened by (i) a wound, injury or disease which was attributable to military sen ice; or (ii) the aggravation by military service of a wound injury or disease which existed before or arose during military service". "8. Attributability/aggravation shall be conceded if casual connection between death/disablement and military service is certified by appropriate medical authority. " Rules 14 and 15 also say that a disease which led to an individual s disability w ill ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in service, if no note of it w as made at the time of individual s acceptance for military service. However, in case medical opinion holds, for reasons to be stated, that the disease could not have been detected on medical examination, prior to accept once for service, the disease will not be deemed to have arisen during sen ice. However, in case medical opinion holds, for reasons to be stated, that the disease could not have been detected on medical examination, prior to accept once for service, the disease will not be deemed to have arisen during sen ice. The onset or progress of the some diseases are affected by environmental factors relating to service conditions and also due to physical and mental stress and strain. In these cases medical authorities must give their opinion to the possibility- of preservice history of such conditions, in order to rule out entitlement of attributability but would require consideration regarding aggravation. Rule 17 requires that normally the medical advice shall prevail for decision in accepting or rejecting claim. It is only in case of doubt CDA (Pension) may refer such cases for second medical opinion to MA (Pensions) in the office of DGAFMS but assessment of degree of disability is essentially a matter of medical judgment and is the responsibility of medical authorities. ( 11 ) IN case medical Board is to give a finding and recommendation on entitlement and assessment in cases of disabilities, which is to be based upon is observations, in the light of the aforementioned rules there can be no question of rejection of such view. which normally should prevail unless cogent reasons are assigned for not accepting such views. In case of doubt also Rule 9 says that benefit must go in favour of the claimant. ( 12 ) ON the same material Medical Board had opined, after noticing that the daily routine of the individual exposed him to exceptional stress and strain, which resulted in aggravation of the disease, As a result of which the petitioner w as medically boarded out. With out assigning any other reason as to why stress and strain to which, as a part of daily routine, the petitioner was exceptionally exposed, same will not be treated as a diseate aggravated by stress and strain of militart service. No material or record has been produced before us and no reason has been assigned by CDA (P) in coming to a different conclusion for which the decision conveyed through annexure R-3 deserves to be held as irrational and arbitrary and liable to be set aside and quashed. No material or record has been produced before us and no reason has been assigned by CDA (P) in coming to a different conclusion for which the decision conveyed through annexure R-3 deserves to be held as irrational and arbitrary and liable to be set aside and quashed. ( 13 ) CONSEQUENTLY, we allow the writ petition and quash and set aside decision R-3 and hold the petitioner entitled to disability pension, as per the opinion of the Medical Board that the disease was attributable to military service and assesment of degree of disability is 30% for two years. Arrears of pension from the date of disability will be worked out and paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from today. Writ Petitioner stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute. No costs.