JUDGMENT R. R. K. Trivedi, J. (1.) IN this petition counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. Since the petition was filed as back as on 15.7.1986, instead of admitting for final hearing, it is being decided finally under the Rules of the Court. (2.) FACTS, In short, giving rise to this petition are that petitioner joined Army Service as M. T. Driver on 8.10.1960. Case of petitioner is that his work and conduct during service was excellent and consequently he was appointed as Instructor in M. T. Driver Training Centre, Gwalior. From there, he was transferred to 506 A. S. C. Battalion. Pithoragarh. Later on he was promoted to the post of Lans Nayak. In April, 1968, petitioner proceeded on two months' annual leave. While on leave he fell ill and was admitted in Command Hospital at Lucknow on 4.6.1968. From the hospital petitioner was discharged on 20.7.1968. It is stated that petitioner's health improved. He was allowed to go home but there was no intimation that he was being discharged from service. According to petitioner, Medical Officer informed that he has been granted medical leave for two months and requisite railway warrant was given to him. When the petitioner did not receive any communication for further movement, he made a representation to the Unit Commander. He also contacted the Secretary, Soldiers Board, Ghazipur. Through Secretary, Soldiers Board, Ghazipur, he learnt that he had been discharged from service on Medical Board Certificate on account of Schizophrenic Reaction (300). On 8.3.1976 petitioner raised a claim for disability pension which was registered as 6660978 Ex. L/NK. On 24.5.1977 his petition was forwarded to Officer-in-Charge (Record) A.S.C. (MT). Aurangabad. On 3.6.1977 he was informed that C. D. A. Pensions, Allahabad rejected the claim of petitioner on the ground that disability was neither attributed to nor aggravated by Military Service. On 28.8.1977 petitioner preferred an appeal to Government of India, Ministry of Defence. By letter dated 15.6.1978. Annexure 4 to the writ petition, delay in filing the appeal was condoned and the matter was forwarded to the Government of India for decision. When petitioner did not receive any communication, he filed present writ petition on 15.7.1986 for the reliefs that the respondents may be directed to decide the appeal filed by petitioner and for further direction to the respondents to pay disability pension to the petitioner under the relevant rules. When petitioner did not receive any communication, he filed present writ petition on 15.7.1986 for the reliefs that the respondents may be directed to decide the appeal filed by petitioner and for further direction to the respondents to pay disability pension to the petitioner under the relevant rules. (3.) ON behalf of the respondents, two counter-affidavits have been filed. First counter-affidavit is of D. L. Kanaujia, who was then serving in the office of Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions), Allahabad. Another counter-affidavit has been filed by Major B. Ashok Kumar on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. Along with this counter-affidavit, various documents relating to disability and discharge of petitioner from Army Service have been filed which include the Medical Board proceedings of the Command Hospital, Central Command. Lucknow and the orders passed rejecting the claim of disability pension and appeal of the petitioner. (4.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner has submitted that from perusal of the proceedings of the Medical Board, it is fully established that disability from which petitioner suffered at the relevant time did not exist before he entered into service. The Medical Board Certificate of the Command Hospital. Lucknow is of the date 1.7.1968. The percentage of disability is 50 per cent and the probable duration of this degree of disablement was two years. The cause for the disability mentioned in the proceedings is narrated as under : "The disease is endogenous and arose in a psychiatrically predisposed individual." Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that there is no material on record to suggest that petitioner suffered from any kind of emotional illness or mental disorder at the time of joining his service and the disability from which he suffered, developed in him during military service. The Medical Board could not reach to any definite conclusion as to how and in what manner the disability developed in petitioner. It could not be ruled out with any degree of certainty that the disability was not caused on account of hard work and acute pressure of the service conditions to which normally military persons are subjected to. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that in such circumstances as it was a case of doubt, the benefit should have gone in favour of petitioner as provided in Pension and Entitlement Rules. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that in such circumstances as it was a case of doubt, the benefit should have gone in favour of petitioner as provided in Pension and Entitlement Rules. In the present case the respondents have Illegally and in an arbitrary manner rejected the claim of petitioner without having regard to Rule 4 of the Pension Entitlement Rules as provided in Appendix II. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that petitioner served for more than seven years and he was legally entitled for pension as the percentage of disability was 50 per cent and the disability developed during the Military Service. Learned counsel has also submitted that as the petitioner has been illegally denied disability pension for a long period, he is also entitled for interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the following cases : 1. Anil Kumar Misra v. Union of India and others, (1996) 2 UPLBEC 761 ; 2. Major Harbans Singh v. Union of India, 1971 SLR 284 (DB); 3. Ram Pal Singh v. Union of India and others, 1983 (3) SLR 291 (SC). (5.) THIS writ petition was taken up for hearing in revised list. However, as usual, no body put in appearance to argue the case on behalf of the respondents on 23.4.1997. Then the case was adjourned for 24.4.1997 and information was sent to the learned counsel for the Union of India but no body put in appearance even on the adjourned date, i.e., 24.4.1997. Consequently, hearing of the case was closed after hearing learned counsel for petitioner. (6.) I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner and have also perused the counter-affidavits and the relevant rules and the cases cited on behalf of petitioner. The Medical Board proceedings which have been filed as Annexure 10 to the counter-affidavit is a very material document for deciding the present case. From perusal of the proceedings, there is no doubt that petitioner did not suffer from any disability at the time he entered into the service, i.e., on 8.10.1960. He has been discharged from the military service on 20.7.1968 after he served the Military Organisation for more than seven years. As stated by petitioner, his work and conduct was excellent and he was appointed as Instructor for M. T. Driver Training and was also promoted as Lans Nayak. He has been discharged from the military service on 20.7.1968 after he served the Military Organisation for more than seven years. As stated by petitioner, his work and conduct was excellent and he was appointed as Instructor for M. T. Driver Training and was also promoted as Lans Nayak. The disability from which petitioner was alleged to have suffered at the time of his discharge from service was Schizophrenic Reaction (300). Schizophrenic ailment has been derived from Schizophrenia which in medical terms denotes a chronic mental disorder characterised by loosening of associations, antism. ambivalence and inappropriate effect, as well as by hallucinations and delusions variously classified according to predominant symptoms or time at onset. Thus, Schizophrenia is kind of mental disorder or psychotic reaction in which motor disturbance, especially stupor (dazed state) or excitement are conspicuous. The petitioner must have been medically examined during his tenure of more than seven years several times. The probable duration of this ailment has been stated to be two years. Nothing has been said in the counter-affidavit why such a mental state or physical condition could not be noticed on intense medical examination to which the Military personnels are usually subjected to during their tenure and at short Intervals. As noticed above, the cause of the disease is endogenous which means 'produced within or caused by factors within the organism'. No definite opinion has been mentioned by the Medical Board about the cause of the ailment. It has also been said that such ailment arises in a psychiatrically predisposed individual. On record there is nothing to show that he ever suffered from any mental illness or disorder and if such an ailment developed in him slowly during the period of service, the reason could have been the stress and hard pressure of work In Military Service. Such physical condition may also be caused on account of remaining away for long duration from family. All such probable reasons can be legitimately attributed to the Military Service. At this place it shall also be useful to look into the relevant provisions governing 'disability pension'. Regulation 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army reads as under : "173. Such physical condition may also be caused on account of remaining away for long duration from family. All such probable reasons can be legitimately attributed to the Military Service. At this place it shall also be useful to look into the relevant provisions governing 'disability pension'. Regulation 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army reads as under : "173. 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." (7.) THE question whether a disability Is attributable to or aggravated by military service shall be determined under the Rules in Appendix II. In Appendix II various rules have been provided for determining entitlement of disability pension. Rules 3, 4 and 7 are very relevant for purpose of resolving the dispute in the present case. THE rules are being reproduced below : "3. There must be a casual connection between disablement and military service for attributability or aggravation to be conceded." "4. In deciding on the issue 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 of service cases." "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 onset 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 individual's discharge or death will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in service if no note of it was made at the time of the Individual's 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 onset 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 etiology of the disease, and of Its normal development, to the effect that conditions of service e.g., exposure, stress, climate may have had on its manifestation. Regard must also be had to the time factor: (ii) Common diseases known to be affected by stress and strain. This should be decided with due reference to the nature of the duties an individual has had to perform in military service. It may be that in some cases the individual had been engaged on sedentary duties where normally they will not qualify. (iii) x x x x x x (iv) x x x x x x (v) x x x x x x (vi) x x x x x x (vii) x x x x x x (viii) x x x x x x" 'and Unforeseen effects of service medical treatment: "(a) Where unforeseen complications arise as a result of treatment (including operative treatment) given for the purpose of rendering a member fit for service duties, any disablement resulting will normally be accepted as attributable to service." "(b) Where the treatment is given for other reasons, the position regarding any unforeseen complications differs accordingly as the condition which necessitated treatment was or was not, either attributable or aggravated, any disablement resulting from the treatment will normally be accepted as attributable to service. If it was not no responsibility will be accepted for the additional disablement unless neglect, delay, faulty technique or lack of reasonable skill can be held responsible for the untoward outcome, or the exigencies of service before, during or after the treatment can be held to have caused or aggravated the condition." "(c) THE above considerations apply whether the treatment is given in a service hospital or under service arrangements in any other hospital but will not apply if the treatment is undertaken under private arrangement by an individual." (8.) FROM a perusal of the above rules, it is clear that for deciding the issue of entitlement, all the evidence both direct and circumstantial, should have been taken into account and benefit of reasonable doubt should have been given to the petitioner. In the present case, there is no material to suggest that any in depth study was made at any stage regarding direct and circumstantial evidence which was necessary for deciding issue of entitlement. Further, if the Medical Board could not precisely and with certainty point out the real cause, the benefit of reasonable doubt ought to have gone in favour of petitioner. In respect of disease as provided in Rule 7 (b), a disease which has led to an individual's discharge will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in service if no note of it was made at the time of individual's acceptance in military service. In the present case, it is not disputed that at the time the petitioner joined the service, he did not suffer from any ailment and no note of such kind was made in his service record. The medical opinion did not record any reason for saying that it is not connected with military service though the disease could be caused by stress and strain. Petitioner was not engaged on sedentary duties. He was in active Military Service which required physical and mental strains. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the deeming clause was fully applicable in the present case. The deeming provision provided in Rule 7 (b) created a presumption that disability has been caused due to military service and for rebutting this presumption, there should have been strong, valid and cogent reasons to rule out that the disease could be attributed to the military service. There is total absence of such reasons. The deeming provision provided in Rule 7 (b) created a presumption that disability has been caused due to military service and for rebutting this presumption, there should have been strong, valid and cogent reasons to rule out that the disease could be attributed to the military service. There is total absence of such reasons. This Court in case of Anil Kumar Mishra, considered the provisions of Rule 7 and held as under : 7. A perusal of the above provisions would show that the disease which leads to an individual's discharge is ordinarily deemed to have arisen in service if no note of it was made at the time the individual's acceptance for service in Armed Forces. In the present case, no such note was made at the time of acceptance of the petitioner for service. It is also not the case of the respondents that the disorder could not have been detected on medical examination at the time of recruitment in the Army. In such circumstances, it is very difficult to accept that the petitioner is not entitled to get 20 per cent disability pension and according to the Rules, as mentioned above, the petitioner is entitled to get the same in accordance with law. Action of the respondents in not doing the needful cannot be sustained and is held to be arbitrary and against the pension Rules. Now the concept of pension has been changed as it is not mere a bounty but it is a right to property. It is not a charity to be given by the Government as the employee has earned it by virtue of putting the best period of his life in the service of society. Under Article 41 of the Constitution of India, the State is under duty to provide public assistance to disabled persons." The aforesaid observations are squarely applicable in the present case also and I am in respectful agreement with the opinion expressed by the learned single Judge in the above case. In my opinion, the petitioner has been illegally refused the disability pension for which he was legally entitled under the Rules. (9.) THE last question for consideration is about the award of the interest. Petitioner was discharged from military service on 20.7.1968. More than 18 years have passed since then. Petitioner raised claim for pension on 8.3.1976, i.e., after about 8 years. (9.) THE last question for consideration is about the award of the interest. Petitioner was discharged from military service on 20.7.1968. More than 18 years have passed since then. Petitioner raised claim for pension on 8.3.1976, i.e., after about 8 years. It has been stated in the counter-affidavit that petitioner was informed about his discharge from Army service and he was given warrant for one way journey. On the other hand, petitioner's case is that he could learn about his discharge from the military service through the Secretary, Soldiers Board, Ghazipur when he made correspondence with the higher Military authorities. In the writ petition prayer was made for a direction to respondents to decide the appeal of the petitioner which, according to the respondents, was already rejected on 8.8.1979 and the order was communicated. However, along with the counter-affidavit no material has been filed showing service of the orders on petitioner by C. D. A. Pensions, Allahabad and the Government of India rejecting the appeal. Possibility cannot be ruled out that petitioner remained ignorant of the aforesaid orders. (10.) TAKING into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the delay involved, in my opinion, petitioner is not entitled for any interest up to 8.3.1976 when he raised the claim for disability pension. He is also not entitled for interest at the rate of 12 per cent on account of the delay. In my opinion, the reasonable view would be to award interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from 8.3.1976. For the reasons stated above, this petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 10.12.1968 passed by C. D. A. Pensions, Allahabad, communicated through letter dated 3.6.1977 and the order dated 8.8.1979 rejecting appeal of the petitioner are quashed. Petitioner will be entitled to the payment Of disability pension including arrears thereof with interest from 8.3.1976 at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. The amount for which petitioner will be entitled shall be paid to him within six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the authorities concerned. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.