ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard Mr. D.K. Chakrovarty, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Sheila Prasad. Standing Counsel Central Government and with their consent this application is disposed of at the admission stage. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 3.9.1997 passed by respondent No. 3, Section Officer, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, whereby the claim of the petitioner for disability pension has been rejected and the said order was also confirmed in appeal by order dated 29.5.2000. 3. Petitioners case is that he joined Air Force Service on 13.10.1986 as Telephone RT operator but has been discharged from duty on 2.2 1996 on the ground that he has been suffering from the disease of psychosis and NIDDM (Non- Insulin Deptt. Diabeteas Militus). The petitioner thereafter claim disability pension which was rejected by the impugned orders. 4. The respondents rejected the claim of disability pension of the petitioner on the ground that it was not attributable to the Military service or It was riot aggravated by Military service. Both In the writ application and in the memo of appeal the petitioner made out a specific case that before his joining in the Indian Air Force on 13.10.1986 he was subjected to medical check up at Air Force Station Kanpur and Gorakhpur which is the mandatory requirement in the Air Force Service. In the medical examination the petitioner was found physically and mentally fit and the medical officers issued certificate of his fitness and free from any sort of disease. It is also the specific case of the petitioner that during his stay in the military service for nine years, he was on hard nature of duty for 7 years. It is further stated that the petitioner had to remain in extreme in hospitable places and in confined state which resulted in mental depression. 5. These facts have not been denied or disputed by the respondent by filing any counter affidavit although this Court allowed sufficient time for filing counter affidavit. In that view of the mater I am of the opinion that when at the time of joining the petitioner was subjected to medical examination and he was physically and mentally found fit, then the respondent cannot be allowed to say that the said disease was not attributable or aggravated by the said service. 6. In that view of the mater I am of the opinion that when at the time of joining the petitioner was subjected to medical examination and he was physically and mentally found fit, then the respondent cannot be allowed to say that the said disease was not attributable or aggravated by the said service. 6. In a decision reported in 1998 LIC 3625, a similar question arose before the Jammu & Kashmir High Court where it was held that when a person was not found to be suffering from any disease or disability at the time of his entering in the Army service, then the presumption that disability occurred during the course of service is there and as such the person is entitled to disability pension. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that decision taken by the respondents-authority rejecting the claim of the petitioner for, disability pension cannot be sustained in law. This writ application is therefore, allowed and the impugned orders passed by the respondents are hereby quashed. Consequently the respondents are directed to take all steps for payment of disability pension to the petitioner according to rules as expeditiously as possible. 8. Application allowed