JUDGMENT 1. - The prayer of petitioner in the instant writ petition is that he has been discharged from the Military services on the ground of Epilepsy and he is entitled for disability pension, which has been wrongly denied by the respondents. 2. The petitioner was recruited in the Granadiers Regiment of Indian Army on November 27, 1974 by the Army Recording Officer at Alwar. While the petitioner was working in tank of Lance Nayak, he was discharged from the service from April 17,1981 on the medical ground, not supplied to him. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner never suffered from any disease at any stage of his life, much less of any mental ailment before entering as also during the course of service. The petitioner was enlisted after thorough medical examination on all aspects from Army point of view, which was repeated periodically year to year, in which the petitioner was invariably found normal and fit for military purposes. It was just some time in the year 1980-81, when the petitioner was digging a Trench, which was at the moment a hard military duty, he slipped striking his head against hard stony ground realing out of giddiness and vertigo. The internal head injury so caused on account of Army duty and military services and is entirely attributable to this duty. This ultimately led to slight epileptic paroxysm of long intervals. The petitioner was medically examined by the Military Medical Board and he was placed in medical category disentitling him of invalidity/disability pension. Although the petitioner was not supplied the grounds of opinion and details of medical examination. 3. Since the petitioner was entitled to disability pension under the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (for short 'Pension Regulations'), he applied for the grant of pension under appropriate medical category. It was only through the letter dated July 17, 1981 the petitioner was informed that his claim for pension was not admissible and was rejected because the disease from which he suffered was not attributable to Military services. The contention of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that the order dated July 17, 1981 was illegal and in view of the Regulation 173 of Pension Regulations he is entitled to disability pension. 4. The contention of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that the order dated July 17, 1981 was illegal and in view of the Regulation 173 of Pension Regulations he is entitled to disability pension. 4. The respondents submitted detailed reply to the writ petition with the averments that the disability suffered by the petitioner is not attributable to military service or aggravated to military services. In view of the Regulation 17 of Pension Regulations, the petitioner is not entitled to disability pension. It is further contended that Rs. 2,000/- were granted to the petitioner by the Government of India for rehabilitation on compassionate grounds. As many as five documents have been annexed with the reply by the respondents. 5. I have pondered over the rival submission and carefully scanned the material on record. 6. Before proceeding further, it will be useful at this juncture to refer to Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations, which reads thus : 173. Unless otherwise specifically provided a disability pension consisting of service element and disability element may be granted to an individual who is invalided out of service on account of a disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military service in non-battle casualty 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 rule in Appendix II. 7. The respondents have annexed the Medical Board proceedings of the petitioner evaluating all ranks. The petitioner was examined by Medical Board on December 24, 1980. In the said proceedings the summary of the case of petitioner was given wherein it was stated that the petitioner was alright upto October, 1980. On October 21, 1980 in evening he had an attack of fits lasting for 10 minutes stated by his colleagues. He had generalised seizures 4-5 times in last one year. The Medical Board categorically stated that the disability of petitioner did not exist before entering into service. This fact is evident from the perusal of column No. 1 of part III of the opinion of the Medical Board. 8. Although in the reply, the respondents have pleaded that the disability of the petitioner due to which he was invalided out of service was neither attributable to nor aggravated of military services, this fact has not been substantiated by any document. 8. Although in the reply, the respondents have pleaded that the disability of the petitioner due to which he was invalided out of service was neither attributable to nor aggravated of military services, this fact has not been substantiated by any document. The document annexure-3 has also been annexed with the reply, which only shows that a decision had been taken by respondents not to allow disability pension to the petitioner on the ground that the disease suffered by the petitioner was not attributable to military service, but the reason for the said opinion has not been explained in the said documents. 9. In view of the medical report as stated hereinabove, I am of the view that the disability, on account of which the petitioner was invalidated, was out of the services of petitioner and is attributable to and aggravated by military services. The case of the petitioner is covered under Regulation 173 of Pension Regulations and he is entitled to disability pension in accordance with law. 10. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and stands allowed. The respondents are directed to allow the disability pension to the petitioner with all consequential benefits in accordance with the Regulation 173 of Pension Regulations, within a period 90 days of receipt of the copy of this order. The petitioner shall also be entitled to the cost of the writ petition.Petition allowed. *******