JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner was commissioned in the Indian Army on 15th June, 89. He submits that at the time of joining he was in perfect state of physical fitness. However, at the time of retire-ment he was found to be suffering from following disabilities. "i) Post burn contracture rt. hand - 30% attributable to military service, ii) Primary hypertension and simple obesity - 30% aggravated by military service. iii) Bronchial asthma - 20% neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. iv) Old injury knee rt. effect of 20% attributable to military service. v) Old dislocation elbow left - 20% neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. vi) Old fracture scaphoid rt. effect of 20% neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service". 2. The medical board made a recommendation in favour of the petitioner. However, he has been denied disability pension. Communication in this regard was addressed to him on 28th Aug., 97 This communication makes mention of the fact that injury at S. No. (i) i.e. post burns contracture rt. hand is an injury which can be regarded as attributable to military service and even though this disablement was assessed at 20% the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. 3. The stand taken by the respondents is: a) That the assessment was made by Release Medical Board but this is recommendatory in nature. b) That a new Medical Board was constituted and the Board found no reason for making a change in its earlier assessment. c) That the competent authority considered the issue and rejected the claims of the petitioner. A letter dt 6th Oct., 99 has been referred to in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the counter. This letter, however has not been placed on record. d) That the competent medical authority had modified the assessment as made by the Release Medical Board from 70% (composite) to 20% for all the disabilities noticed above. This was done in exercise of power conferred upon the Competent Medical Authority under the rules referred in paragraph 10 of the counter i.e. R 17 and27(c) of RER 1982. 4. The petitioner, therefore was not found entitled to claim pension. His contention that the disability should be taken at 50% was held to be not tenable. 5. This was done in exercise of power conferred upon the Competent Medical Authority under the rules referred in paragraph 10 of the counter i.e. R 17 and27(c) of RER 1982. 4. The petitioner, therefore was not found entitled to claim pension. His contention that the disability should be taken at 50% was held to be not tenable. 5. In para 10 of the petition, petitioner has submitted that he be granted dealership of liquified petroleum gas or of any other petroleum product by issuing a certificate of disability upto 50%. 6. Regarding the above aspect of the matter the stand taken by the respondents is that the decision in this regard is to be taken by the Selection Board constituted by the Ministry of Petroleum. It is, however submitted that as the disability of the petitioner is only upto 20% therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to contend that the disability should be taken as 50%. 7. The question as to whether the disabilities which have been noticed above are attributable to army service or not is a matter which stands settled by several judicial pronouncements. It is well recognised that if a particular disease or injury is not noticed in the service profile of an officer when he joins the army, then the presumption would be that the later disease or injury from which he came to suffer occurred on account of hazards of army service. Such is the view expressed in Union of India vs. Rattan Lal 1999 (2) SCT 39. A Division Bench of this court while dealing with the principles for grant of pension and more so disability pension observed as under: i) That in case mention is not made regarding the disease or disablement at the time of entry in service then it is to be presumed that the disability occurred during the course of service, ii) That the disability would be on account of stress and strains of army service. iii) If the competent authority is to disagree with the findings recorded by the medical board vis-a-vis the disability or the percentage thereof, the matter should be referred to the medical board. iii) If the competent authority is to disagree with the findings recorded by the medical board vis-a-vis the disability or the percentage thereof, the matter should be referred to the medical board. iv) As there is no finding recorded that the respondent with petitioner was suffering from a disease which not be detected at the time of entry into service the appellant Union of India cannot take a somersault and come to a contrary conclusion. v) Delay in approaching the court is irrelevant. 8. So far as the disease at serial no. 1 noticed above is concerned there is dispute regarding this. This is admittedly attributable to hazards of army service. 9. The primary hypertension and bronchial asthma can also occur to a person on account of hazards of army service. The continuous shifting of a person from one place to another does expose men of the disciplined force to different ecological surroundings. Continuous stay in a humid or a dry area can lead to bronchial asthma. Therefore, to say that the disease at no. (ii) and (iii) noticed above could never be acquired on account of hazards or army service is an argument which cannot be accepted. 10. Again the old injury knee (rt) old dislocation elbow (It) and old fracture scaphoid (rt) are the injuries which were not noticed by the army authorities when the petitioner joined the service. Therefore, these injuries would also be attributable to army service. It can be concluded that these injuries were suffered by the petitioner while in army service. 11. Again the view is well settled that once an opinion is expressed by the Release Medical Board then that view should normally be accepted. In Janak Raj vs. Union of India 2000(2) SCT 456 the disability of the aggrieved Army personnel was determined by the medical board at 40%. The Controller of Defence Accounts rejected the claim. It was observed that the Controller of Defence Accounts cannot all over the findings of the Medical Board. In another case reported as Nk Darshan Singh vs. Union of India 2000(2) SCT 504 the claimant came to suffer from a paralytic stroke. It was a case of 100% invalidity. The recommendations made by the Medical Board were negatived by the Controller of Defence Accounts. It was observed that the Medical Boards opinion should prevail and the claimant was held entitled to disability pension. It was a case of 100% invalidity. The recommendations made by the Medical Board were negatived by the Controller of Defence Accounts. It was observed that the Medical Boards opinion should prevail and the claimant was held entitled to disability pension. Thus cumulative effect of all the injuries is to be taken note of. The prayer of the petitioner that his disability should be assessed at 50 percent is accepted. As a matter of fact if by taking into consideration the total disabilities the percentage goes above 50%. This would also be examined. His pensionary claims would be settled as at present by taking this disability at 50% accordingly within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is made available to the respondents by the petitioner. 12. It is further observed that the claims of the petitioner for grant of dealership of Liqui-fied Petroleum Gas or any other petroleum product is a matter on which a decision has to be taken by the concerned ministries. It is accordingly directed that this claim of the petitioner would be considered by taking his disability as 50 percent. Let a decision be taken in this regard and conveyed to the petitioner at the earliest possible and in any case not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the respondents. 13. Disposed of accordingly alongwith connected CMPs.