JUDGMENT 1. - Through this special appeal filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court, Ordinance, 1949, the appellant seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 23rd April, 2001 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition was rejected. 2. The appellant hereinabove was the original petitioner in the writ petition. He came with the case that he was enrolled in Army as a Sepoy on 25th September, 1984 and was classified in medical category 'A' or 'AYE'. At the time he was enrolled, he was hale and hearty person, he did not suffer from any disability at that time. It was also submitted that he remained posted in field operational areas on the western border of this country in the year 1986 while he was posted in the field, he had to report sick on 29th August, 1986. On 5th June, 1989, he was admitted in Command Hospital (Northern Command), Secunderabad in Psychiatric Wing. He was diagnosed to be suffering from 'Schizophrenia' and ultimately on 25th August, 1989, he was discharged from hospital and was sent back to his home and invalided out of service in the medical category 'E' or 'EEE'. On account of disease diagnosed as above, he suffered 60% disability. His discharge from service was under Rule 13(3) III (iii) of Indian Army Rules. The discharge slip, copy of which has been enclosed with the writ petition as Annexure-1, shows that he was discharged to home with 2 escorts to hand over him to his next of kins and obtained a necessary certificate. His case for disability pension claim was then sent to the Controller of Central Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad - on 7th March, 1990 by the Chief Record Officer for Officer-in-Charge, Electrical and Mechanical Engineering Records, Secunderabad and by letter dated 21st April, 1990, he was informed by the Assistant Records Officer for OIC EME Records that his case for disability pension was still under consideration and as and when it is denied, the result will be communicated. It was followed by reminder dated 21st August, 1990. The petitioner then received a letter dated 14th December, 1990 from the respondent No. 3 intimating him that his disability pension claim has been rejected on the ground that-1. Your invaliding disability viz 'Schizophrenia' (a) Is not attributable to military service. It was followed by reminder dated 21st August, 1990. The petitioner then received a letter dated 14th December, 1990 from the respondent No. 3 intimating him that his disability pension claim has been rejected on the ground that-1. Your invaliding disability viz 'Schizophrenia' (a) Is not attributable to military service. (b) Does not fulfil the following conditions, namely if existed before or arose during his military service and has remained aggravated thereby. 3. The petitioner was, thus, not found to be entitled for disability pension. On 14th January, 1991, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the rejection of his claim of disability pension before the Chief Record Officer for Officer-in-charge, EME Records, Secunderabad and ultimately filed the writ petition on 11th March, 1991 before this Court. It appears from the record of this case that a reply to the writ petition dated 1st July, 1991 was filed on behalf of the respondents alongwith certain documents seeking to quash the petitioner's challenge against the rejection of his claim for disability pension and to this reply, a rejoinder dated 8th December, 1997 was filed. This is all about the pleading as were filed on behalf of the parties in this writ petition. 4. The learned Single Judge decided this writ petition by a judgment and order dated 23rd April, 2001 which is the subject matter of challenge before us in this special appeal. Mr. Shyam Singh, learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is not in conformity with the relevant rules and the rejection of the petitioner's claim for the disability pension could not have been upheld by the learned Single Judge. It was also submitted that earlier a judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in the case of Nemi Chand v. Union of India and others reported in 2000(1) WLC 393 was a case identical to the case of the petitioner and the same has been incorrectly distinguished by the learned Single Judge. It was also submitted that earlier a judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in the case of Nemi Chand v. Union of India and others reported in 2000(1) WLC 393 was a case identical to the case of the petitioner and the same has been incorrectly distinguished by the learned Single Judge. Merely, by saying that in the case of Nemi Chand, the Army personnel who was denied the disability pension was on duty in extreme situations in Punjab during dark days of Punjab militancy and it was because of such a situation in Punjab prevailing at that time, that the petitioner in that case i.e. Nemi Chand had developed the disease of 'Schizophrenia', the case could not be distinguished. While referring to the pleadings in the rejoinder filed in the petition, learned counsel for the appellant also invited our attention that neither the petitioner nor any other member of his family had ever suffered from 'Schizophrenia' earlier and a number of persons suffering from similar mental disease had been held entitled for disability pension and their disease was regarded to be attributable to or aggravated by the military service and by way of examples, the reference has been made to the following cases : (a) Megh Singh, PO No. 47480 of Indian Navy, a case of Encephaletis effects vide PPO No. NA/RA/27/95; (b) Richpal Jat LS, No. 48952 of Indian Navy a case of unspecified psychois vide PPO No. 09/97B/l/0020/93. (c) Mahipal Verma Cfn. No.. 14547809 of EME a case of Schizophrenia vide PPO No. 0/129/96; (d) Sajjan Singh, No. JC 16318, Ex. Nb. Sub. (RT) of Mahar Regiment, a case of Schizophrenia reaction vide PPO No. D/334/97 dated 30.9.1997. 5. On the basis of these pleadings, a plea of discrimination has been set in. Learned counsel has raised the contention that there is no point of distinction between the cases in which the disability pension has been made as enumerated above and in the case of the petitioner and therefore, he has been subjected to discrimination in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the respondents have acted in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner in applying different yardsticks in identical cases of disability pension. 6. As against it, Mr. 6. As against it, Mr. Sanjay Pareek appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that it was a case in which the nature of the disability was constitutional and the same could not be attributed to the services. It could not be said that during the course of service, the disability had been aggravated. Mr. Pareek has laid stress on the opinion of the Medical Board and has submitted that the Medical Board had opined his disability in this case as a disability in constitution. In other words, according to the respondents, the disability is not attributable to the services and whereas the Medical Board had opined that the disability was of constitutional nature, there is no question of granting the disability pension and the petitioner's claim for disability pension had been rightly rejected. However, he failed to explain the entry against item No. 21 in Part 4 of Appendix 2 to the Medical Board proceedings, invaliding all ranks. This entry against item No. 21 is as under : 21. Invalid/ Disability pension for : SP DP recommended which recommended. 7. Mr. Sanjay Pareek has submitted that SP denotes service pension and DP denotes disability pension and he submits that there could not be a recommendation for both the pensions simultaneously and merely, it was in this entry, SP as well as DP have been also recommended. While there is no question of recommending of service pension, no enforceable right accrues in favour of the petitioner for the claim of disability pension on account of the recommendation contained in the entry as above. 8. Before we proceed to examine the merits of the case in his challenge thrown to the judgment of the learned Single Judge, we may briefly make reference to the relevant Rules in this regard as under : 9. Earlier Pension Rules, 1961 provided for the primary conditions for the grant of disability pension in Regulation 173 which is re-produced as under for ready reference: 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. The question whether a disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service shall be determined under the Rules in Appendix II. 10. The question whether a disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service shall be determined under the Rules in Appendix II. 10. It is, therefore, clear that for the purpose of getting the disability pension, the invalided individual from service should be a sufferer of disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military service and the disability must be assessed at 20 per cent or more. Further the question whether the disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service shall be determined under the Rules in Appendix 11. So far as the basic facts that the petitioner in this case was invalided from service on account of disability and his disability was more than 20% are not in dispute because the disability has been certified as 60% in this case. The only question which remains is to see as to whether the disability incurred by the petitioner could be said to be attributable to or aggravated by military service. In terms of regulation 173 re-produced hereinabove, this question has to be determined under the Rules as contained in Appendix II and therefore, learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through the scheme of the Rules as contained in Appendix 11. In this Appendix II, Rule 4 provides as under: 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 service cases. 11. Rule 7 provides that in respect of diseases the following Rule will be observed i.e. Rule 7(b) as under : 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. 12. In this appendix, the diseases affected by stress and strain i.e. Psychosis and Psychoneurosis have been enumerated as under : D. Diseases affected by stress and strain. Psychosis and Psychoneurosis. Hyperpiesia.Pulmonary Tuberculosis.Pulmonary Tuberculosis with pleural effusion. Tuberculosis-Non-pulmonary. Mitral Stenosis.Pericarditis and adherent pericardium. 12. In this appendix, the diseases affected by stress and strain i.e. Psychosis and Psychoneurosis have been enumerated as under : D. Diseases affected by stress and strain. Psychosis and Psychoneurosis. Hyperpiesia.Pulmonary Tuberculosis.Pulmonary Tuberculosis with pleural effusion. Tuberculosis-Non-pulmonary. Mitral Stenosis.Pericarditis and adherent pericardium. Endo-carditis.Sub-acute bacterial endo-carditis, including infective endo-carditis. Myocarditis-acute or chronic.Valvular disease. 13. In this appendix, item at capital E specifically provides the diseases not normally affected by service and the same are as under : E. Diseases not normally affected by service. Malignant disease; Cancer and Carcinoma. Sarcoma (except in cases of sarcoma of bone with a history of injury, due to service, on the site of development of the growth).Epithelioma. Rodent ulcer. Lymphosarcoma. Lymphadenoma (Hodgkin's disease). Leukaemia.Pernicious anaemia (Addison's anaemia). Osteitis deformana (Paget's disease). Gout.Acromegaly. Corrhosis of the liver-if alchoholic. EYESErrors of refraction. Hypermetropia. MyopiaAstigmatism. Preshyopia Glaucoma acute or chronic, unless there is a history of injury due to service or of disease of the eye due to service. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant has also referred to a letter dated 22nd November, 1983 sent to Chief of the Army Staff, Chief of the Navy Staff and Chief of the Air Staff by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence in the matter of Entitlement Rules to Casualty Pensionary Awards to the Armed Forces Personnel, 1982 wherein it has been mentioned that the President has decided that the entitlement Rules set out in Appendix to this letter shall apply in cases of disablement of death of service personnel who became non-effective on or after 1st January, 1982. This letter was issued with the concurrence of Ministry of Defence (Finance Division). The rules contained in the Appendix with this letter dated 22nd November, 1983 may not be strictly applicable in terms because it relates to the cases of disablement of death of service personnel. But the learned counsel has submitted that these rules from this Appendix also provide necessary guidelines in the matter of deciding entitlement to the disability pension and in this regard, his submission is, that the approach to the question of entitlement for Casualty, Pensionary Awards evaluation of disabilities etc., has to be based on the presumptions as under : 5. But the learned counsel has submitted that these rules from this Appendix also provide necessary guidelines in the matter of deciding entitlement to the disability pension and in this regard, his submission is, that the approach to the question of entitlement for Casualty, Pensionary Awards evaluation of disabilities etc., has to be based on the presumptions as under : 5. Prior to and during service (a) A member is presumed to have been in sound physical and mental condition upon entering service 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 health which has taken place is due to service. Onus of proofThe claimant shall not be called upon to prove the conditions of entitlement. He/she will receive the benefit of any reasonable doubt. This benefit will be given more liberally to the claimants in field/afloat service cases. 14. Diseases In respect of diseases, the following rule 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 courses 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 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. 15. The onset and progress of some diseases are affected by environmental factors related to service conditions, dietic compulsions, exposure to noise, physical and mental stress and strain. Disease due to infection arising in service, will merit an entitlement of attributability. 15. The onset and progress of some diseases are affected by environmental factors related to service conditions, dietic compulsions, exposure to noise, physical and mental stress and strain. Disease due to infection arising in service, will merit an entitlement of attributability. Nevertheless, attention must be given to the possibility of pre-service history of such conditions which, if approved, could rule out entitlement of attributability but would require consideration regarding aggravation. For clinical description of common diseases reference shall be made to the Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pensions) 1980, as amended from time to time. The classification of diseases affected by environmental factors in service is given in Annexure-III to these rules. 19. Aggravation: If it is established that the disability was not caused by service, attributability shall not be conceded. However, aggravation by service is to be accepted unless any worsening in his condition was not due to his service or worsening did not persist or the date of discharge claim. 20. Conditions of unknown aetiology: There are a number of medical conditions which are of unknown aetiology. In dealing with such conditions, the following guiding principles are laid down: (a) If nothing at all is known about the cause of the disease, and the presumption of the entitlement in favour of the claimant is not rebutted, attributability should be conceded. (b) If the disease is one which arises and progresses independently of service environmental factors than the claim may be rejected. 22. Assessment of degree of disability is entirely a matter of medical judgment and is the responsibility of the medical authorities. 15. We may also refer to the cases which have been cited before us by the learned counsel for the parties. In the case of Nemi Chand v. Union of India, reported in 2000(1) WLC 393 , a Single Bench of this Court considered the question of entitlement of disability pension in the facts of that case which in our opinion appears to be identical and the case of Nemi Chand v. Union of India is the nearest case on the controversy involved in the present case. By the judgment dated 3rd August, 1999, in case of Nemi Chand v. Union of India (supra) more than one cases have been decided by common judgment. By the judgment dated 3rd August, 1999, in case of Nemi Chand v. Union of India (supra) more than one cases have been decided by common judgment. In the first case of Nemi Chand, the disability was Sensory Neural Deafness (Left ear) suffered by petitioner Nemi Chand because of the damage to his left ear on account of bombardment during Pakistan war. The petitioner was in medical category 'A' at the time of his entry into service and was rendered to low medical category 'CEE' at the time of his discharge. In the case of Surendra Singh v. Union of India decided by the very same judgment and order, the petitioner was in medical category 'A' at the time of his entry into service, had no family history of Schizophrenic Psychosis and it was stated that while being deployed on security duty in terrorist affected area in Punjab, he fell ill due to stress and strain on duty and he remained under treatment in the Military Hospital for more than one year and his disease was aggravated and he was ultimately invalided from service due to Schizophrenic Psychosis assessed at 70% by the invaliding Board and handed over to the next of kins as totally insane. Yet, another case decided along with Nemi Chand's case through the very same common judgment and order was the case of one Shri Guman Singh, who was enrolled in 1942 and at that time, he was in medical category 'A' and was not suffering from any disease he fell ill because of exposure stress, climate etc. and was invalided from service in lowest medical category 'E' due to 'Effort Syndrom'. In his case, the disability was assessed at 20%. Thus, in this common judgment and order, the case of the petitioner therein was common. In para 16 of the judgment, reference has been made to Regulation 173 and reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rampal Singh v. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1984 SC 504 . In this case, the claim of disability pension in two out of three petitioners in that case was accepted by the Court. 16. In this case, the claim of disability pension in two out of three petitioners in that case was accepted by the Court. 16. The case of Madan Singh Shekhawat v. Union of India and others, reported in JT 1999(6) SC 116 : [ 1999(4) SLR 744 (SC)] was again a case of disability pension and it was held in this case by the Apex Court that when Army personnel is on casual leave, the same is counted as duty unless he comes under any one of the exceptions under Rule 11(a) of the rules and it was not the case of the respondents therein that the appellant comes under any such exceptions. Therefore, as per Rule 10(a), the appellant was on duty at the time of accident. A person incurring disability when proceeding to his leave station or returning to duty from his leave station at public expenses is also entitled to grant of disability pension. 17. The Supreme Court in this case has considered the various provisions and has laid down the guidelines and has observed that it is the duty of the Court to interpret the provisions, especially a beneficial provision, liberally so as to give it a wider meaning rather than a restrictive meaning which would negate the very object of the Rule. Thus, even in a case when the Army personnel was on casual leave and suffered the disability and was discharged on that account, the entitlement to disability pension was upheld. The Army personnel in this case had been discharged on medical grounds arising out of an accident in which his right hand was amputated just four inches below from the joint of collar bone while he was alighting from the train at Didwana Railway Station and at the time of the accident, he was travelling form Jodhpur to his home station on authorised casual leave granted to him. The Supreme Court has ruled in this case in no uncertain terms that the rule makers did not intend to deprive the army personnel of the benefit of the disability pension solely on the ground that the cost of journey was not borne by the public exchequer. The Supreme Court has ruled in this case in no uncertain terms that the rule makers did not intend to deprive the army personnel of the benefit of the disability pension solely on the ground that the cost of journey was not borne by the public exchequer. If the journey was authorised, it can make no difference whether the fare for the same came from the public exchequer or the army personnel himself and accordingly, the appeal of Shri Madan Singh Shekhawat was allowed by the Supreme Court. 18. In the case of Union of India & Another v. Baljit Singh reported in (1996)11 SCC 315 , the Army personnel had sustained moderately severe injury Abductor Strain (R) Thigh Internal Derangement (R) Knee and was down graded to medical category 'CEE' by a duly constituted Medical Board and he was discharged from the Military Hospital, Babina. Medical Board of Doctors physically incapacitated and reported in Psychiatric OPD where he was diagonsed to have a 'Neurosis' superimposed on an immature histrionic personality. He was recommended invalided out of service and was discharged with his consent as an invalided man and therefore, he had filed petition before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh and the High Court directed the payment of disability pension. This direction of the High Court for giving disability pension to Baljit Singh was upheld by the Supreme Court where it was challenged through SLP by the Union of India. 19. The case of Ex-Sepoy Sahib Singh v. Union of India reported in 1999(5) SLR 562 is a case decided by Punjab and Haryana High Court relating to disability pension in the case of personality disorder. In this case, the disability pension was denied only on the ground that the disability was of a constitutional nature and not attributable to the military service. The Court held that the denial was not proper. The personality disorder is a constitutional disease that factor by itself does not defeat the claim for the grant of disability pension. It was, therefore, a direct case of constitutional disability as has been argued before us in the present case and the Punjab and Haryana High Court for good and valid reasons has found that even in such cases, the entitlement to the disability pension has to be accepted. It has been observed that personality disorder is not one of the diseases mentioned in Annexure III. It has been observed that personality disorder is not one of the diseases mentioned in Annexure III. In sub-heading (b) the diseases known as "Psychosis" and 'Psychoneurosis' affected by stress and strain of military service do find mention. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in this case made reference to the decision rendered in the case of Bhag Singh v. Union of India and others reported in 1996(4) R.S.J. 55 . The case decided by the Haryana and Punjab High Court in which it was found that the classification of various diseases which are affected to climatic conditions, affected by stress and strain, affected by dietary compulsions, training, marching etc. and normally affected by the service. In the list of diseases affected by stress and strain of military service, the disease known as 'psychosis' and 'psychoneurosis' have been included and needless to say, that these diseases relate to mental disorder of an individual. Schizophrenia, with which the petitioner was suffering from and which disease he developed during his military service, can definitely be said to be affected by the stress and strain of the military service. 20. In the case of Subedar Gurdip Singh v. Union of India reported in 1997(5) SLR 341 , the scope of Army Pension Regulations, 1961 was considered by a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Court found from the copy of the proceedings of the Board in which the Board has clearly opined that disability was constitutional, but not attributable to the Army service and therefore, the Court that it could not be fair to substitute its own opinion for that of competent authority. 21. In the case of Sepoy Mohinder Singh v. Union of India & Others decided by a Division Bench of Delhi High Court and reported in 1999(4) SLR 50 , was a case in which the Army Medical Board found the disability of bladder obstruction to be an organic and constitutional disease, neither caused nor attributable to Army service nor aggravated by it and disability was caused due to fracture proximal phalanx of right index finger and this was considered to be disability for the pension which leaves a permanent disability of 6 to 10 per cent as against the requirement of 20% for being eligible to disability pension. Therefore, when required 20% disability was not found in this case, the Division Bench rejected the claim for disability pension. 22. The case of Gopal Das Maheshwari v. Union of India and others reported in 8(6) SLR 163, was again a case for disability pension in which the concerned employee was employed as a Clerk in the military service at peace stations, it was treated against him that enrolment could not lead to Schizophrenia, the mental disorder because of the service condition and then first part of Regulation 173 is not fulfilled in absence of any nexus between the disability of the service conditions, Regulation 173 would not be applicable. It is very clear from the facts of this case decided by Madhya Pradesh High Court that there must be a nexus between the disability and the service conditions, but not in every case of Schizophrenia. It has to be taken that merely because it is a Constitutional disability, there is also no case for claiming disability pension. It will be effective in each and every case, if the disability on account of the disease of the Schizophrenia is incurred by the Army personnel on account of the condition in which he is living and get this disease because of the stress and strain at the place of his working, it cannot be said that it is not attributable to the service or that it has not granted on account of the service. Therefore, this case of Gopal Das Maheshwari (supra) on which reliance has been placed by Mr. Sanjay Pareek cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. The Army personnel who is not active in service posted on the field operational area at the border of the country cannot be compelled with the case of a Clerk in the military service at a peace station. There is no parity with the conditions and the working place of these two cases and in our opinion this case cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. 23. There is no parity with the conditions and the working place of these two cases and in our opinion this case cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. 23. In the case of Dariyai Singh v. Union of India and Others reported in 1997(3) WLC 693 , the same question has been dealt with and in this case, it was found that a note was found that the diseased could not be detected on medical examination prior to acceptance for service and in absence of such note, disability shall be deemed to have arisen while in service and Court did not find any evidence that the petitioner suffered from such disease prior to the joining of the service or that such disease was constitutional and was not detectable on medical examination prior to his acceptance of service. The petitioner found to be entitled to the disability pension. 24. We have examined the submissions made before us on behalf of both the sides in the light of the principles which have been laid down in the aforesaid cases and in the light of the pleadings in this case led with the relevant Rules. The only question which has to be examined is as to whether the disability incurred by the present petitioner on account of the disease of the Schizophrenia can be said to be a disability attributable to or aggravated by the military service in the facts of this case. According to Regulation 173, this question is required to be determined on the basis of the Rules contained in Appendix H. Rule 7(b) about which we have already made a reference in earlier part of the order clearly provides that 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. In the facts of the present case, admittedly, no such note was made at the time of his entry into service and therefore, accordingly to Rule which is in the nature of a deeming clause by fiction of law, it has to be presumed that this disease of 'Schizophrenia' which he has incurred has to be deemed to have arisen. In the service in absence of a note as contemplated by Rule 7(b). In the service in absence of a note as contemplated by Rule 7(b). Besides this, it may also be seen that the diseases, not normally affected by the service, having separately classified under item E and such diseases do not include the case of 'Schizophrenia'. Whereas the case of 'Schizophrenia' must be found to be included under item D of diseases affected by stress and strain. There is no dispute that the 'Schizophrenia' is a disease arising out of mental disorder or unfitness and according to the Modi's Medical Jurisprudence, it is a case of mental disorder and the cause of this illness is still not known, but the consensus is about the multiplicity of factors in its causation. The distress and strain which a person suffers may be a vital factor for classifying the disease of 'Schizophrenia'. Therefore, this disease is covered according to the Appendix II under the heading of diseases, affected by stress and strain and in the facts of the present case, while posting of the petitioner at the field operational area on the western border is not disputed before us and it has been submitted that it was case of distress and strain suffered by him, there is no note that the disease could not be detected at the time of his entry into service and the Medical Board itself has mentioned that it is a disability of constitutional nature, but has not opined that it was not attributable to the service. The whole purpose of taking opinion from the Medical Board is to assess as to whether the disability which has been suffered is on account of the nature of the services or that it was because of the services and thus, it was the basic question on which the Medical Board was to opine. In view of this, we have no hesitation in holding in the light of the principles laid down in different cases that it was the situation in which the petitioner suffered the disability on account of the nature of the service rendered by him and it was granted on account of service there was and he is entitled to disability pension under the relevant Rules. We may also observed that in view of the decision in Nemi Chand's case decided earlier, this petition deserves to be allowed. We may also observed that in view of the decision in Nemi Chand's case decided earlier, this petition deserves to be allowed. We have called upon learned counsel for the respondents to point out any distinction between the Nemi Chand's case and the present case, but the only distinction which he had pointed out is that in the case of Nemi Chand, other case of Surendra Singh was referred and that Surendra Singh was posted in terrorist striken area during dark days of Punjab and therefore, this case is distinguishable as has been mentioned by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. In our opinion, this is no point of distinction. An Army personnel posted at the border in operational area cannot be placed at a lower pedestal than the personnel who was working in the terrorist striken area in the State of Punjab. On such illusory distinction, the relief could not be denied and the petition should have been allowed in view of the decision in the case of Nemi Chand (supra). 25. We accordingly set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge, allow this appeal itself holding that the petitioner is entitled to the disability pension w.e.f., from the date of his discharge. 26. In the facts of the case, the appellant shall be entitled to Rs. 5,000/- as cost of this appeal. The respondent's are directed to make the payment of the entire arrears within a period of three months from the date, the certified copy of this order is served on the concerned authorities either by the parties or through the Court whichever is earlier. In case the appellant is not paid all the arrears even by the end of the period of three months as directed by us hereinabove, the petitioner shall be entitled to the interest on the entire amount at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.Order accordingly. *******