JUDGMENT 1. - By the instant writ petition, petitioner seeks quashing the impugned orders Annex. 3 and Annx. 6 passed by the Competent Authority and the Appellate Authority, respectively, and directing respondents to grant him disability pension. 2. Petitioner was enrolled in Indian Air Force on 22.5.1974. After serving the respondents for 22 years and 303 days, he was discharged from service vide impugned order dated 20.3.1997 (Annex. 3) on being found medically unfit as he was suffering from the diseases Schizo Affective Psychosis and Silent Myocardial Infraction and his disability was assessed at 30%. The grievance of the petitioner is that the disability suffered by the petitioner was attributed and aggravated on account of stress and strain suffered during Air Force Service and as such he was to be granted disability pension but vide impugned orders, the respondent Authorities dismissed his claim. Hence this writ petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. The main reason for refusal of disability pension to the petitioner is that the diseases suffered by the petitioner were not attributable to military service. Para 7(b) of Appendix-11 to the Pension Regulations for the Indian Air Force reads as under: 7(b). A disease which has led to an individuals discharge or death will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in service if no note of it was made at the time of individuals acceptance for Air Force 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 in service." 5. A careful reading of para 7(b) makes it clear that a disease which has led to an individuals discharge will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in service if no note of it was made at the time of individuals acceptance for Air Force Service. In the instant case, at the time of enrolment, petitioner was subjected to through medical examination by the Air Force/Military Medical Officers and he was found fit in medical category "AYE", i.e., FIT. He was again subjected to thorough medical examination by the Competent Medical Board for extension of service and again found in medical category "AYE". In the instant case, at the time of enrolment, petitioner was subjected to through medical examination by the Air Force/Military Medical Officers and he was found fit in medical category "AYE", i.e., FIT. He was again subjected to thorough medical examination by the Competent Medical Board for extension of service and again found in medical category "AYE". Likewise, at the time of his promotion to the posts of Corporal on 22.5.1979 and Sargeant on 1.8.1986, he was subjected to medical examination and found in the category of "AYE". Thus, the reasonable and logical presumption is that the diseases suffered by the petitioner are attributable and aggravated on account of Air Force Service. Moreso, the petitioner remained as indoor and out-door patient in Military Hospitals several times from 1993 to 1997, meaning thereby that he suffered the disease known as Psychosis in the year 1993 as according to him, the reason for this disease was stress, strain and horrification suffered on account of his strucking by lightening, heavy snow-fall and constant firing sounds across the boarder. All these facts suggest that the diseases suffered by the petitioner were attributable to or aggravated by Air Force Service. 6. The respondents have failed to establish that the petitioner was suffering from the said disease prior to joining the service or that such disease was constitutional and was not detectable on medical examination prior to his acceptance of service. As such, the reasonable presumption can be drawn that the diseases suffered by the petitioner are attributed to and aggravated by military service. 7. In Union of India v. Bodan Lal Yadav, 1994 (1) SLR 390, the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that cause of disability which has led to the discharge of the persons concerned from Army service will be deemed to have arisen in service if no Note of such disability was made at the time of entry in the Armed Force that he was suffering from such disability or unless such a note is recorded at a subsequent date that the disease in question was such which could not have been detected by medical examination before he had joined the service. In absence of such a Note, the Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed the disability pension for the petitioners who were discharged from the Army for their disability.A Division Bench of Delhi High Court, in Satpal Singh v. Union of India, 1999 (4) SCT 23, petitioner was discharged from service on the ground of mental disorder but there was no entry inspite of all medical check-ups at the time of his enrolment in service. Petitioner suffered from neurosis when posted in forward area due to anxiety suffered from Schizophrenia. The Division Bench observed that rule 7(b) raises presumption as to attributability of disease to disability during the course of service and held that the petitioner is entitled to disability pension. 8. In Col. M.L. Sethi v. Union of India, 1998 (2) SCT 228, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court held that an employee is entitled for disability pension in case no mention is made regarding the disease or disablement at the time of entry in service; the presumption would be that disability occurred during the course of service and the disability was on account of the stress and strains of the army service. The Court further held that if the disability pension is to be denied then speaking order is required to be passed and delay in approaching the court is irrelevant. 9. In Dariyal Singh v. Union of India & Ors., 1997 (3) WLC (Raj.) 693, the petitioner therein was invalided from service on the ground of his suffering from Cranto Pharyngloma. Respondents rejected petitioner's claim for disability pension on the ground that the disability was not attributable to or aggravated by military service. There was no note appended that disease could not be detected on medical examination prior to acceptance for service. In absence of such note, the coordinate Bench held the petitioner entitled to disability pension. 10. In the instant case, there is no Note appended that the petitioner suffered from such disease prior to joining service or that such disease was constitutional and was not detectable on medical examination prior to his acceptance of service. Rule 7(b) also leads to raise a presumption in favour of the petitioner that the disease suffered by him was attributed to and aggravated on account of Air Force Service. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is held entitled for disability pension. 11. Rule 7(b) also leads to raise a presumption in favour of the petitioner that the disease suffered by him was attributed to and aggravated on account of Air Force Service. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is held entitled for disability pension. 11. Moreso, rule 153 of the Pension Regulations for the Air Force, 1961 reads as under: 153. Unless otherwise specifically provided, a disability pension may be granted to an individual who is invalided from service on account of disability which is attributable to or aggravated by Air Force and is assessed at 20% or over." 12. In the instant case, the disability suffered by the petitioner has been assessed at 30% and the respondents failed to establish the case that the disability suffered by the petitioner was not on attributable to or aggravated by Air Force Service. Thus, the petitioner is held entitled for disability pension on this count also. 13. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders Annx. 3 and Annx. 6 are set-aside and the respondents are directed to forthwith release disability pension to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed - Impugned Order Set Aside - Direction Given to Release Disability Pension. *******