JUDGMENT MS. KAMLESH SHARMA, J.—The Petitioner in the above writ petition has assailed order dated 20.8,1995 (Annexure P-3) and order dated 30.6.1997 (Annexure P-5) whereby the decision of the Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (P), Allahabad was communicated to the Petitioner that no disability pension is admissible to him under the Rules w.e.f. 12.10.1995 and if he desired, he might prefer an appeal within a period of six months. Accordingly, the Petitioner preferred an appeal, which was also rejected by order dated 30.6.1997 (Annexure P-5), 2. The admitted facts on record are that the Petitioner was enrolled in Dogra Regiment on 7.11.1958 and at the time of enrolment he was found medically fit by the Recruiting Officer. Thereafter, the Petitioner on successfully completing his basic military training, was posted to 15 Dogra on 30.12.1959. During his service, he served in field areas in Jammu and Kashmir and Nagaland, and was awarded Good Service Medal 1947 with clasp NAGA HILLS, Raksha Medal 1965 and Sainya Seva Medal with clasp Jammu and Kashmir. Unfortunately, while serving with 15 Dogra he suffered from disease Pulmonary Tuberculosis and was admitted in Military Hospital Amritsar on 24.5.1967 and thereafter transferred to Military Hospital Aundh (Poona) on 7.11.1967 for future treatment. During the course of his treatment at Military Hospital Aundh (Poona) on 23.10.1987, the Medical Specialist opined that the Petitioner was unfit for further military service and recommended to be brought before Invaliding Medical Board. Accordingly, the Petitioner was examined by duly constituted Medical Board, which recommended for invaliding him out of Army service, which was finally accepted by the Assistant Director Medical Service, Maharashtra and Gujarat Area on 14.11.1967. The Medical Board assessed the disability of the Petitioner at 100% to be reviewed after one year and attributable to military service. The Medical Board also opined for further treatment of the Petitioner for 18 months or more, if required as an ex-serviceman in Military Hospital. A copy of the Medical Boards proceedings for invaliding the Petitioner is on record as Annexure RB. In accordance with the opinion of the Invaliding Medical Board, the Petitioner was discharged from military service w.e.f. 7.11.1967 but continued to get treatment in Military Hospital, Aundh (Poona), wherefrom he was finally discharged on 8,1.1969. At the time of discharge from the Army, the character of the Petitioner was assessed as Exemplary5. 3. In accordance with the opinion of the Invaliding Medical Board, the Petitioner was discharged from military service w.e.f. 7.11.1967 but continued to get treatment in Military Hospital, Aundh (Poona), wherefrom he was finally discharged on 8,1.1969. At the time of discharge from the Army, the character of the Petitioner was assessed as Exemplary5. 3. It is also not in dispute that following Re-survey Medical Boards were conducted from time to time to assess the disability of the Petitioner and determine the rate of disability pension to be granted to him :— S.No. Period From To Assessed/ Accepted Disability Rate of disability Pension granted. (a) 6 November, 1968 8 January, 1970 100% Rs. 47/- per month. (b) 9 January, 1970 25 December, 1970 80% Rs. 35/- per month. (c) 26 December, 1970 4 December, 1971 60% Rs. 33/- per month. (d) 5 December, 1971 5 October, 1972 40% Rs. 26/- per month. (e) 6 October, 1972 20 August, 1974 30% Rs. 25/- per month. (f) 21 August, 1974 22 May, 1976 30% Rs. 25/- per month. (g) 23 May, 1976 1 March, 1986 20% Rs. 20/- per month. (h) 2 March, 1986 11 October, 1995 20% Rs. 25/- per month. 4. Finally the Petitioner was Brought before the Re-survey Medical Board on 18.5. 1995 at Millitary Hospital, Yol District Kangra and his disability was assessed at 20 % for life. Medical Board’s Proceedings were also approved by assistant Society of Health and Senior Advisor (Preventive of social Medicine) Headquarters northern Command on 5.6.1995. According, the disability claim of the petitioner was sent to the chief controller defence. 5. The Stand of the Respondent in their reply- affidavit is that the disability pension of the petitioner has been discontinued in accordance by the rules as his disability was assessed below 20 % (i.e. 6% to 10%) by the competent authority. Referring to rules 17 and 27 (c) of entitlement Rules for casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 (Extract Enclosed as Annexure RP), it is pointed out that the Medical Board shall give findings and Reformations can be reviewed and revised by the Medical Authorities viz Director-General of Armed Forces Medical Services. Referring to rules 17 and 27 (c) of entitlement Rules for casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 (Extract Enclosed as Annexure RP), it is pointed out that the Medical Board shall give findings and Reformations can be reviewed and revised by the Medical Authorities viz Director-General of Armed Forces Medical Services. It is further Explained that,” Since the Medical Board functioning in various military Hospitals cannot be expected to be uniform in their assessment of disability and also in the question whether the disease is attributable to or aggravated by Military service, the Joint Director, Armed Forces Medical Services attached as Medical advisor (pension), Allahabad, ensures consistency in assessment of disabilities. The action taken by Chief Controller Defence Accounts (Pension) Allahabad on the basis of the report of the Joint Director General Armed Forces is, therefore, as per rules in vogue on the subject and therefore sustainable." 6. In rejoinder filed by the Petitioner the allegations made in the Writ Petition are reiterated and contrary stated in the reply-affidavit is denied alleging that the impugned action of the Respondents is unjust, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Two instances are given where the disability pension of Ex-Sepoy Prithi Singh and Ex-Hav. Chandu Ram Sharma, both belonging to Dogra Regiment, reduced to less than 20% by the Chief Controller Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad was held at 20% and disability pension was awarded in the appeals filed by them. In support of these submissions documents Annexure P-8 to P-11 have also been placed on record. The Respondents have not controverted these allegations by filing further affidavit. 7. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and going through the record, we are of the view that on the admitted facts on record the only point in issue is whether the impugned order passed by the Chief Controller Defence Accounts (Pension) Allahabad holding that no disability pension is admissible to the Petitioner w.e.f. 12.10.1995 by relying upon the report of the Joint Director, Armed Forces Medical Services attached as Medical Adviser (Pension), Allahabad is legal and valid? The submission on behalf of the Petitioner is that the report of the Joint Director, Armed Forces Medical Services attached as Medical Adviser (Pension), Allahabad only on the basis of documents, as he had admittedly not examined the Petitioner in person, reducing the disability from 20% for life, as assessed by the Re-Survey Board, to 6 to 10% is unjust and arbitrary. 8. We find substance in this submission. It is correct that under Rules 17 and 27 of the Entitlement Rules, 1982 (Annexure RP : Extract of Rules 17 and 27) the findings of Invalidating Medical Board/Re-survey Medical Board are recommendatory in nature and can be reviewed and revised by the Medical Authority, namely, Director-General Armed Forces Medical Services, which is the final authority for giving views of medical issues. It is also provided in these Rules that normally the views of the Invalidating Medical Boards/Re-survey Medical Boards shall prevail in accepting or rejecting the claim and in case of doubt, the Ministry/Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions) may refer such cases for second medical opinion to Medical Adviser (Pensions) Sections in the Office of the Director General Armed Forces Medical Services/Office of the Chief Controller Defence Accounts (Pensions), Allahabad respectively. Therefore, the spirit of these Rules is that the recommendations of Invalidating Medical Board/Re-survey Medical Board regarding claim of disability pension should be respected by the Chief Controller Defence Accounts (Pensions), Allahabad and in case of doubt he may refer for second medical opinion to Medical Adviser (Pensions) in his Office, as appears to have been done in the present case. But, the second opinion given by the Joint Director, Armed Forces Medical Services as Medical Adviser (Pensions), Allahabad only on the basis of documents on record without examining the Petitioner and without giving reasons to differ with the recommendations of the Re-survey Medical Board that the disability of the Petitioner was assessed as 20% for life is unjust, arbitrary and cannot stand judicial scrutiny. The Respondents have not brought any material on record to justify the opinion of the Joint Director Armed Forces Medical Services that the disability of the Petitioner was 6 to 10% and not 20% for life as recommended by the Re-survey Medical Board on the basis of which the Chief Controller Defence Accounts (Pensions), Allahabad has passed the impugned order which has been mechanically approved by the Appellate Authority. For taking this view we are relying upon an unreported judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 264 of 1991 titled, Ex. Sapper Mohinder Singh v. Union of India, delivered on 14th January, 1993 in which the recommendations of the Medical Board assessing the disability of the appellant in that case as 40% was not accepted by the Chief Controller Defence Accounts (Pensions), who held the disability at less than 20% disentitling the appellant to disability pension. In this context the learned Judges have held :— "..... In view of all the relevant circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the Disability Pension assessed at the rate of 40% by Medical Board, which had examined the appellant, should be respected until a fresh Medical Board examine the appellant again and comes to a different conclusion. Accordingly we direct that for the period 1.8.1989 to 31.1.1993 the appellant shall be paid the Disability Pension at the rate of 40% and it will be open to the authority concerned to have the appellant re-examined by a properly constituted Medical Board for reassessment of the disability with effect from 1.2.1993." 9. We also rely upon the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ex.-Sepoy Chatter Singh v. Union of India and another, 1994 (1) SLR 465, and the judgment of this Court in Ran Singh Jaggi v. Union of India and others, 1995(2) SLJ 991. On the other hand, the judgment of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India v. G.K. Deshak, 1994 Supp.(1) SCC 70, cited by the learned Additional Central Government Counsel, where the learned Judges of the Supreme Court have held that the High Court should not have decided the question of medical fitness in favour of the candidate and held him entitled to appointment against the medical opinion of the specialist doctor, rather supports the case of the Petitioner than the Respondents. Therefore, we set aside the impugned orders dated 20.8.1995 (Annexure P-3) and dated 30.6.1997 (Annexure P-5) and hold the Petitioner entitled to disability pension on the basis of 20% disability for life as assessed by the Re-survey Medical Board on 18.5.1995 at Military Hospital, Yol, District Kangra. Since the Petitioner has been denied disability pension from 12.10.1995, he will be given interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the arrears of disability pension. Since the Petitioner has been denied disability pension from 12.10.1995, he will be given interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the arrears of disability pension. Learned Additional Central Government Counsel has vehemently opposed this relief to the Petitioner on the ground that the case of disability pension is distinguishable from . the service pension, but according to us this objection has been raised to be rejected. We do not find any distinction between the two as both are earned by the employees by the services rendered by them, as a matter of their right. By now it is well settled that the pension and gratuity are no longer a bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement or being boarded out but these are their valuable rights and property, therefore, culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with penalty of payment of interest at the market rate of interest, till actual payment. 10. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 20.8.1995 (Annexure P-3) and dated 30.6.1997 (Annexure P-5) are quashed, and the Respondents are directed to pay disability pension to the Petitioner at the rate of 20% disability for life. They are further directed to calculate the arrears of disability pension payable to the Petitioner and make the payment thereof with 12% per annum interest within a period of three months from today. However, there is no order as to costs. Petition allowed.