Judgment 1. Head learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Addl. Standing Counsel Mr. S. N. Pathak for the respondents. According to the writ petition, the petitioner had joined the Indian Army as a Sepoy on 29.7.82. He was discharged on medical ground, namely, depression with effect from 17.2.92. He submitted his claim for disability pension which was rejected by order dated 18.1.92 (Annexure-3). The petitioner preferred statutory appeal which was also rejected by order dated 31.8.94 on the ground that the depression was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, copy of which is not on record. It is further stated in this writ petition that the petitioner was missing soon after dismissal of the appeal till October 2002 when he was suddenly sighted in Delhi. The petitioner prays before this Court for a direction to the respondent authorities for grant of disability pension. 2. Counsel for the respondents has taken me through his counter affidavit and opposes the writ petition. He also submits that the writ petition is hit by delay. 3. It appears to me on a perusal of the pleadings on record and consideration of submissions of learned counsel for the parties, that the petitioner had not completed ten years of service in the Indian Army. It is further manifest that the petitioner was removed from the service because of his over-dependence on alcohol which resulted in depression rendering him unfit to perform military duties. Paragraph 21 of the counter affidavit is relevant in the present context and is set out hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference : "21. That the statements made in paragraph no. 5 of the writ petition is not correct. The petitioner was having drinking habit of alcohol. His six months history of illness was attached with AFMSF- 16 (Medical Board proceedings) dated 7 January 1992. The petitioner was habitual offender and having three red ink entries in his short service. Even though he was given chance to improve himself. Habitual drinking was not connected with Military Service but due to self illness. Therefore, his disease was correctly assessed as not attributable to military service. The petitioner was habitual offender and having three red ink entries in his short service. Even though he was given chance to improve himself. Habitual drinking was not connected with Military Service but due to self illness. Therefore, his disease was correctly assessed as not attributable to military service. The claim of the petitioner that his illness was due to stress and strain of military service are baseless and vague." It is thus manifest that the petitioners depression was entirely self-inflicted and, in fact, the respondent authorities had taken care to have him treated in the military hospital, yet the petitioner did not give up his drinking habit. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to place any provision of law before me entitling him to the benefit of disability pension. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel her rightly relied on the judgment dt. 7.5.2002, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWJC No. 15605 of 2001 (Smt. Dawanti Devi V/s. Union of India & Ors.) which stood on similar footing, the relevant portion of which is set out hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference : "......Rule 7(d)(viii) of Retirement Rules says about invalidation on account of indulgence in drugs and drinks-"Entitlement shall not be conceded if the disability or death on which the claim is based resulted from indulgence in drugs or drinks which was within ones own control." The rule is very clear which says that such person is not entitled to any disability pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner, no doubt, stated that husband of the petitioner was not Drug Phychosis, however, he was mentally not fit. No document has been brought on the record in support of his contention with respect to such diseases." The same has been upheld by a Division Bench by order dt. 11.9.2002, passed in LPA No. 946 of 2002. 4A. In that view of the matter, I have no doubt in my mind that the petitioners claim has been rightly rejected by the respondent authorities. In view of the position that I have dealt with the matter on merits, I do not feel the necessity of examining the question of delay in preferring this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.