JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner was enrolled in Army in March 1971 in Medical Category AYE. At the time of enrolment he was not suffering from any decease. It is not denied that he had a war service in the year 1971-72 and again 1973-74. The petitioner submits that he was also awarded a senior Sewa Medal Jammu & Kashmir Sangram Medal for participating in Indo-Pakisthan War in 1971. It is the case of the petitioner that a damage to his left ear was caused because of bombardment during Pakistan war. The petitioner was discharged from service in low Medical category 'CEE' permanently on 20.11.1976 after rendering service of five years and 269 days due to Sensory Neural Deafness (Left ear) with 30% disability. It is the case of the petitioner that disability was attributed to because of military service and, therefore, he was entitled to disability pension as per regulations. For the reason that he was discharged in low medical category "CEE", he is to be considered and treated as invalidated from service as per rules. 2. The petitioner had been demanding the medical papers, but the same had not been provided to him and, therefore, the petitioner could not approach the court with the accurate facts. The petitioner is relying on number of authorities for grant of disability pension under Rule 173 of Appendix 2 and Rule 7-B of the Rules and Regulations 173 read with Para 1 and 7(b) of the pension Regulations as framed by the Army. 3. The case of the petitioner was referred to the CCDA(P), but was rejected. It is the submission of the petitioner that for the reason that he was enrolled under Category 'A' and discharged in category 'C', therefore, he was deemed to be invalidated from service because of disease attributable or aggravated by service as per para 1 and 7-B of Appendix of Regulation and for this purpose relies on a judgment reported on (1) 1991(2) SLR 512. The petitioner had been asking for certain documents as mentioned at page 7 of the writ petition, but the petitioner was not supplied any of the document nor, the medical report nor the recommendations and, therefore, he could not file the second appeal to the Government of India within a reasonable time. Appeal was forwarded to the Government for orders under the provisions of Reg. 88(A) of the Regulations. Appeal was forwarded to the Government for orders under the provisions of Reg. 88(A) of the Regulations. His request was rejected on 3.7.1995 vide Annexure-14 for being belated as his requests already stood rejected time and again. The petitioner submitted the legal notice and filed the present writ petition. The petitioner has cited as precedents the cases of number of employees who were similarly situated but whose cases were considered for disability pension. The petitioner cites names of Shri Megh Singh, Richhpal Jat and Jagmal Singh etc. The petitioner has prayed for disability pension from 26.11.1976 with interest till payment. 4. Reply has been filed by the respondents. An objection has been taken that the petitioner has approached this court at a very belated stage, even though vide Annexure-10 the petitioner was informed on 31.1.1995 that his case for disability pension cannot be considered and is rejected. It is stated in the written statement that the disability pension is considered on the assessment of the disability by the Board of Officers of Medical Service in the Army taking into account the nature of duty, place of duty and dimatic/weather conditions and the medical authority is competent authority to recommend for disability pension. It is stated that the disease Sensory Neural Deafness (Left ear) is neither attributable nor aggravated because of military service. 5. The respondents had also filed certain documents along with the Misc. application dated 14.11.1996 filed in this court relating to the medical status i.e. AFMSF-16. Column 21 of the medical form relates to the fact whether the disability pension is recommended or not. Against Column 21 it was mentioned that the case of the petitioner is recommended for death cum retirement gratuity/disability pension. Column 21 is reproduced as under: 'Col. 21 Invalid/disability Pension for which recommended Recommended death-cum retirement gratuity/disability pension.' 6. This form is signed on 12.10.1976 by the Officer commanding. Yet another format AFMS-81 attached with the writ petition which has been filled by the Medical Officer and against column 5(v) it is mentioned that the disease had started from 27.1.1975 to 29.3.1975 and illness had commened w.e.f. 7.7.1975.7. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner having been working in Rajputana Rifles was actually in service as mentioned above and had faced the bombardment and this bombardment could have gradually impaired his left ear. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner having been working in Rajputana Rifles was actually in service as mentioned above and had faced the bombardment and this bombardment could have gradually impaired his left ear. He was recommended for disability pension as per Col.21, but nothing has been brought on record before this court as to how and under what reasons any finding was given that the disease was not attributable to military service or aggravated in military service, even though the original record produced in this regard is totally blank. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6080/96 Surendra Singh Vs. Union of India. 8. The petitioner was initially enrolled in the Jat Regiment of the Indian Army on 11.12.1979 and discharged on 20.10.1983. He was enrolled in the defence security corps on 24.1.1984 in Medical Category 'AYE'. It is stated that at that time he did not suffer any disease or has any family history of Schizophemic Psycosis. It is stated that while deployed on security duty in terrorist affected area in Punjab, the petitioner fell ill due to stress and strain of duty and he remained under treatment in the Military Hospital for more than one year and his disease aggravated. He was ultimately invalided from service on 26.5.1987 (AN) due to Schizophernic Psychosis with a disability assessed at 70% by invalided board held on 29.4.1987. He was handed over to his next of his kin as a totally insane. It is stated that the disease had arisen because of his service and it was fully covered under Rule 7(b) of the Appendix-II and the disease was falling under Category of stress and strain listed at Sr. No. B of Annexure-I and was entitled to disability pension under Rule 173. His case was rejected on the ground that the disability was neither attributable nor aggravated by service. His appeal was also rejected on 15.12.1988. It is stated that he was not informed about the provision of second appeal and when he had come to know about the provision of second appeal, he made such petition in October, 1994 vide Annexure-7. The second appeal was rejected on 12.2.1996 vide Annexure-II and hence the present petition.9. The petitioner had put in 3 years and 10 months service at initial stage and he was again re-enrolled in January 1984. The second appeal was rejected on 12.2.1996 vide Annexure-II and hence the present petition.9. The petitioner had put in 3 years and 10 months service at initial stage and he was again re-enrolled in January 1984. While deployed on security duties in terrorist affected area in Punjab, he fell ill due to stress and strain of duty and admitted in the Military Hospital on 15.12.1986 and invalided on 26.5.1987. The grounds being taken in the present writ petition also are identical so far as delay is concerned as have been taken in Civil Writ Petition No. 3792/95 Nemi Chand Vs. Union of India & Ors. , facts of which have been mentioned above. It is stated that because of the reason that the petitioner was discharged in low medical category, therefore, ipso facto he was entitled to disability pension and relies on number of authorities. It is further submitted that number of other persons who were similarly situated had been granted the disability pension.10. In the written statement filed by the respondents apart from the fact that an objection has been taken of the delay in filing the writ petition, it is stated that he had earned only an aggregate service of 7 years and 71 days. The petitioner is said to have been paid an amount of Rs. 6,300/- on account of invalid gratuity and Rs. 5,400/- on account of retirement gratuity and further an amount of Rs. 26,250/- on account of disability benefits as covered under the Army Group Scheme. It is stated that invalid medical Board was held on 29.4.1987 at Military Hospital, Jullandhar camp and the Board had recommended release of Medical category 'E' Schizophernic Psychosis with 70% disability for 2 years and he was delared as 'Idiopathic Constitutional disorder'. The respondents state that the petitioner is not entitled to any disability pension at all as his case do not fall under Regulation 173. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6092/96 Guman Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. 11. The petitioner was enrolled in Jodhpur Lancers on 11.6.1942. He worked upto 17.1.1947. He was enrolled in the Army on 20.9.1948 in Medical Category 'A'. It is stated that he was not suffering from any disease at that time. It is stated that he fell ill because of 'expousure stress, climate etc. Union of India & Ors. 11. The petitioner was enrolled in Jodhpur Lancers on 11.6.1942. He worked upto 17.1.1947. He was enrolled in the Army on 20.9.1948 in Medical Category 'A'. It is stated that he was not suffering from any disease at that time. It is stated that he fell ill because of 'expousure stress, climate etc. and was invalided from service in lowest medical category 'E' due to 'Effort Syndrome' on 11.10.1952 after service of 8 years, 7 months and 28 days and his disability was assessed as 20%. He claimes disability pension under Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations. He further submits that his case was recommended for pension, but had not been granted the pension.12. It is the common case of the petitioners that the petitioners were not aware of the provisions of filing of appeal and, therefore, they had filed the appeal at the later stage when they were so made known and their appeals were rejected, therefore, if there is any delay that is irrelevant. The petitioners rely on Annexure-7 wherein a case of one Sajjan Singh who was invalided in the year 1954 but his case was reviewed in 1963.13. Written statement was filed by the respondents. It is stated that he was invalided in October 1952 and had filed the writ petition after about four decades. It is further submitted that Rule 7(b) and 7(c) of the Army Pension Regulations are not applicable in the present case. Rule 7(b) and 7(c) are reproduced as under: 'Rule 7(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.' 'Rule 7(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.' 14. 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.' 14. It is stated that at the time when the petitioner was invalided, there was no provision for filing any appeal and, therefore, filing of the appeal at much later stage shall not give any fresh cause of action to the petitioner. The case of other employees are said to be distinguishable and cannot be compared with the case of the petitioner, it is so stated in the written statement. A further objection had been taken that as per certified copy of the army order No. 4.33/71, the Government of India had taken a decision that the period for filing of first and the second appeal is one year as per Annexure-10 attached with the written statement.15. Counsel for the respondents rely on S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2816/92 decided on 14.11.1995 , Ram Swaroop Vs. UOI another division Bench decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 14096/95 decided on 15.3.1996 , photostat copy of which has been placed on record wherein the writ petition filed after a delay of 5 years without giving any explanation was held to be barred by the principles of laches. Similar was the position in the case of Ram Swaroop (supra). The writ petition of Guman Singh which has been filed after a lapse of about 41 years can be dismissed on the ground of ]aches for having been filed with inordinate delay. Even otherwise also it has not been shown as to how the disease of the petitioner was attributable to the military service. No such circumstance has been mentioned.16. Regulation 173 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 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 H.17. The question whether a disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service shall be determined under the rules in Appendix H.17. Regulation 4 states that in deciding the issue of entitlement of the evidence both the direct and circumstantial may be taken into account and benefit of reasonable doubt may be given to the claimant. This benefit will be given more liberally to the claimants in field service cases. Rule 7(b) says that the 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 individual's acceptance for military service. Rule 7(d) provides that the condition of service e.g. exposure, stress, climate etc. may have had on its manifestation. Psychosis and Psychoneurosis is a disease caused by stress and strain, it is so mentioned in the rules.18. The petitioners rely on number of authorities i.e. Rampal Singh Vs. UOI & Others AIR 1984 SC 504 where the ex-serviceman had suffered injury in Indo-Pak conflict i.e. while rendering service on war front and the disability was 20 percent: it was held that the Regulation 173 is attracted. That was an admitted case of the injury having been inflicted during Indo-Pak war and is, therefore, distinguishable from the facts of the present cases.19. The petitioners rely on another judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of () Ex-Capt Harbhajan Singh Vs. The Secretary, Ministry of Defence 1996(4) SCT 222 wherein while discharging the army man the disease mentioned was Sensory Neural Deafness (Bilateral) as in the present case. The question to be determined in that case was whether this disease could be recorded as attracted to military service and degree of disability was to be assessed. It was a case where disability had occured because of exposure to blast of field firing. It was held that no reason what-so-ever has been given for not accepting the recommendations of the Medical Board/Re/survey Medical Board by CCDA(P) etc.20. Counsel for the petitioners also rely on another Punjab & Haryana decision in the case of Ex. Sepoy Hoshiar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. It was held that no reason what-so-ever has been given for not accepting the recommendations of the Medical Board/Re/survey Medical Board by CCDA(P) etc.20. Counsel for the petitioners also rely on another Punjab & Haryana decision in the case of Ex. Sepoy Hoshiar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. 1996(3) SCT 87 where it was held that when the petitioner was physically fit at the time of enrolment but was suffering from Neurosis, there was no finding of any medical Board that the disease existed at the time of entry into service, it was held that it has to be assumed that the disease was attributed to the army side. It was observed as under: 'Admittedly the petitioner was physically fit at the time of his enrolment on November 20, 1970. At that time he was exactly 20 years of age. On Jaunary 14, 1980, when he was invalided out of service, the petitioner was suffering from Neurosis. It has not been averred by the respondents that any medical board had found that the disease existed at the time of his entry into service or that it was such as could not have been detected on medical examination. Still further it is the admitted position that the petitioner had developed Neurosis for the first time of February 23, 1977. By that time he had already served in the Indian Army for more than six years. This condition coupled with epilepsy continued till the petitioner's invalidation out of service. In view of the provisions of Regualtion 173 read with that in Appendix, it has to be assumed that the disease was ttributable to the Army service. This is all the more so in view of the fact that there is no medical evidence that the petitioner was suffering from such a disease at the time of his entry into service or that it should not have been detected on medical examination.' 21. To similar effect was another judgment given by Punjab & Haryana High Court in 1992(3) SLR 662 Roshan Lal Vs. UOI and 1993(3) SLR 758 Bodan Lal Yadav Vs. UOI affirming the judgment reported in 1992(3) SLR 758.22. To similar effect was another judgment given by Punjab & Haryana High Court in 1992(3) SLR 662 Roshan Lal Vs. UOI and 1993(3) SLR 758 Bodan Lal Yadav Vs. UOI affirming the judgment reported in 1992(3) SLR 758.22. Counsel for the petitioners also rely on a Single Bench decision of this court in (9) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3513/95 decided on 11.4.1997 wherein it was held as under: 'When the petitioner was found fit before re-employment and served about 8 years, thereafter, he again developed the same disease i.e. Schizophernia, it was in the knowledge of the non-petitioner that previously he was discharged from the Army on the same ground, therefore, now it cannot be disputed that the disease was attributable or aggravated by the petitioner while in Army service. In Joginder Singh's case Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while on casual leave, Jodinder Singh suffered injuries in an accident even then he was found entitled for disability pension. In the present case during the employment of Army petitioner suffered with Schizophernia, it will be regarded as acquired during service in Armed Forces, there is no justification for denying the disability pension to the petitioner. Therefore, he is entitled for disability pension for total period spent on duty from 12.5.1971 as per rules.' 23. To the same effect the petitioners rely on the judgment 1997(3) WLC 693 Dariyav Singh Vs. UOI of this court and yet another judgment in Civil Writ Petition No. 4904/97 decided on 23.3.1996 (sic ?) Ram Kumar Singh Vs. UOI. 24. From the facts as narrated above and the law laid down, it is very dear that the petitioners at the time of enrolment were hale and hearty and were not suffering from any disease. In the writ petition No. 3792/95 Nemi Chand Vs. UOI , it had been specifically pleaded that the petitioner had been facing the bombardments in Jammu & Kashmir and the deafness can be caused because of bomb blasts. Similarly in the writ petition No. 6080/96 in the extreme dark days of Punjab extremists, the petitioner was put to duty on guard. This stress and strain at that relevant time could cause disease being suffered by him.25. Apart from above, nothing has been brought on record as to when they were examined by the Medical board or even the report of the medical board is not forth-coming. This stress and strain at that relevant time could cause disease being suffered by him.25. Apart from above, nothing has been brought on record as to when they were examined by the Medical board or even the report of the medical board is not forth-coming. No reasons have been mentioned at all by any of the affidavit of any authority except bare submission that the petitioners had been boarded out for invalided service. It has been brought on record that they have suffered 30% in Nemi Chand's case and 70% of disability in writ petition No. 6092/96 and in my opinion they are entitled to the disability pension under the regulations.26. An objection has been taken by the respondents to the effect that the petitioner had approached the court at a very late stage. It is not disputed that the pension is the property and the property cannot be taken away except by process of law. Only because of the reason that the petitioner some how could not have approached the court at the earliest possible even though the petitioners have tried to explain the delay, but in the fitness of circumstances it will be proper that while determining the disability pension of the petitioners they be paid arrears of such pension of the 3 years only prior to filing of the writ petition i.e. from the date of discharge and till prior to 3 years of filing of the writ petition, the petitioner would not be entitled to any arrears of pension i.e. in writ petition No. 3792/95 Nemi Chand Vs. Union of India & Ors. and 6080/96 Surendra Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. and the writ petition 6092/96 Guman Singh V/s UOI is dismissed for the reasons mentioned above. No costs.Petition Disposed Of. *******