Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.- By instant writ petition, petitioner has assailed action of respondents, whereby he has been declined disability pension \ under Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (“Army Pension Regulations”) vide order dated 10.01.1997 (Annexure-15) after his discharge from service on 10.05.1973 under Rule 13(3) Item III (V) of Army Rules, 1954 (“Army Rules”), on account of being placed on medical category CEE (P), which was not considered upto prescribed military physical standard, despite having rendered service of 7 years, 2 months and 14 days. 2. Petitioner was enrolled in the Army on 26.06.1966 and discharged from service on 09.05.1973 after putting in service of 7 years, 2 months and 14 days under Rule 13(3) Item III (V) of Army Rules, after being placed on medical category CEE (P), as per medical opinion expressed in proceedings of the Medical Board viz., he was suffering from disease “Varicocele”, which initially started in March, 1970 and he was admitted in Command Hospital (SC) Poona from 23.09.1970 to 110.1970 and after medical operation, he was finally placed in medical category CEE (P) with effect from 17.02.1972; and disability of petitioner was finally assessed at 5% permanent. In view of what was observed by Medical Board, petitioner was discharged from service vide certificate dated 13.03.1973 (Annexure-3) with effect from 10.05.1973. 3. So far as grant of disability pension claim is concerned, it was examined by competent authority, but after taking note of medical report, it was rejected by respondent No. 3 (CCDA, Allahabad) vice order dated 28.07.1973 inter alia stating that disability which the petitioner claimed, was below 20% and it was neither attributable to nor aggravated by army service. 4. Since, the petitioner, on the one hand, was discharged from service, and contrarily was also deprived from disability pension, he made representations one after the other to competent authority and ultimately was informed vide letter dated 20.12.1988 (Annexure R 4) holding that he is not entitled for disability pension for the reason that disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by army service, as such, no disability pension is admissible to him. Finally petitioner got served legal notice of demand for justice and thereafter approached this Court by filing CWP No. 175/95, which was disposed of vide order dated 18.07.1996 as reproduced in Para 15 of instant petition-whereby it was directed that his case for grant of pensionary benefits be considered at Army Hqr., New Delhi and also by Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) Allahabad. Under the direction of this Court, his case for grant of disability pension was considered and rejected vide letter dated 10.01.1997 (Annexure-15) for two fold reasons (a) his disability was assessed at 5% (permanent); and (b) it is neither attributable to nor aggravated by army service. Hence, this petition, 5. As per pleadings in the writ petition, petitioner has raised objection even with regard to the decision taken for discharge from service, but at the time of arguments, Counsel for petitioner has confined his grievance only with regard to claim of disability pension. 6. Shri R.N. Sharma, Counsel for petitioner has urged that when petitioner joined army service on 26.02.1966, he was allowed to join service only after he was found medically fit; and no note of disease was made at the time of his acceptance of defence service and no note or endorsement has been made in the discharge certificate that the disease was such which could not have been detected on medical examination prior to his acceptance for defence service and even as per medical report (Annexure R 1), in summary of the case, it has categorically been pointed out that the disease started in March, 1970 when he was in service; and according to him, it is a case where disease is attributable by army service, and accordingly he is entitled for disability pension in terms of Regulation 173-A of Army Pension Regulations. 7. 7. Shri Sharma has also urged that the disability upto 20% or above is the only condition for grant of disability pension under Regulation 173, and Regulation 173-A was added by way of amendment vide CS No. 5/1/67 Appendix II which does not impose such condition/restriction that actual disease should be assessed at 20% or above, and accordingly present being a case of disability which is attributable by army service, it makes him eligible for release of disability pension under Regulation 173-A and in these circumstances, action of respondents in declining his claim of disability pension is in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India so also of principles of natural justice. 8. Respondents have filed reply to writ petition. Shri Sanjay Pareek, Counsel for respondents has urged that as petitioner was placed in low medical category of CEE (P) and not upto the prescribed military physical standard, he was rightly discharged from service under Rule 13(3) Item III (V) of Army Rules, and since at the time of discharge, he had put in service of 7 years, 2 months & 14 days, he was not entitled for disability pension being failed to fulfill medical requirement. So far as rejection of disability pension is concerned, Shri Pareek has contended that minimum qualifying service requisite for grant of pensionary benefits is of 15 years, which the petitioner has not rendered in army before discharge from service, and that apart, for grant of disability pension, primary condition is that disability must be attributable or aggravated by army service and that too is assessed at 20% or above. Shri Pareek also urged that in case of petitioner, since disability was neither attributable nor aggravated by army service, and it being assessed at 5% (permanent), he failed to fulfill primary condition for grant of disability pension as provided under Regulation 173 of Army Pension Regulations, his claim for disability pension has rightly been rejected by the authority. 9. Shri Pareek also urged that in case of petitioner, since disability was neither attributable nor aggravated by army service, and it being assessed at 5% (permanent), he failed to fulfill primary condition for grant of disability pension as provided under Regulation 173 of Army Pension Regulations, his claim for disability pension has rightly been rejected by the authority. 9. It has also been contended by Shri Pareek that on discharge from service, whatever terminal benefits became due to him, were paid immediately without any loss of time and despite the fact that he was discharged from service in 1973, he approached this Court after a lapse of 25 years, and that apart, after order of this Court having been passed ex parte, yet the matter was examined by respondent authorities in details after taking note of medical report so also factum of discharge from service besides considering category of disability, he was not found to be eligible for such grant of disability pension and accordingly, his claim was rejected vide order dated 10.01.1997 (Annexure-15). 10. I have considered rival contentions of both the parties and also perused material on record. The fact which remained undisputed from record is that petitioner rendered 7 years, 2 months, 14 days in army service and for grant of disability pension, no minimum qualifying service is required in the scheme of Army Pension Regulations and the petitioner while enrolled in army on 26.02.1966 joined after having found medically fit and no note of disease was recorded either at the time of acceptance of Army service or in the discharge certificate (Annexure-1) issued to him, and even as per medical report (Annexure R 1) in summary of case as referred to therein. It has also been recorded that disease started in March, 1970 and thereafter was hospitalized in Command Hospital (SC) Poona and after being medically operated, he was placed in lower medical category “CEE” from 17.04.1972. On the said material on record, it cannot be said that he was suffering from disease “Varicocele” even on the date when he was enrolled in army in 1966 and that be so, the disease would be deemed to have arisen during service and can be attributed only while discharging army service. On the said material on record, it cannot be said that he was suffering from disease “Varicocele” even on the date when he was enrolled in army in 1966 and that be so, the disease would be deemed to have arisen during service and can be attributed only while discharging army service. In such fact situation, the very objection raised by respondents that the disability occurred was neither attributable nor aggravated by army service as per Regulation 173 of Army Pension Regulations, in my opinion, is not borne out from material on record. 11. Regulations 173 & 173-A of Army Pension Regulations, so also 7(b) of Appendix II (Entitlement Rules) relating to grant of disability pension since are relevant for examining the present controversy, the same are reproduced as under:- “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 percent or over. The question whether a disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service shall be determined under the rule in Appendix II. “173-A. Individuals who are placed in a lower medical category (other than E) permanently and who are discharged because no alternative employment in their own trade/category suitable to their low medical category could be provided or who are unwilling to accept the alternative employment or who having retained in alternative appointment are discharged before completion of their engagement, shall be deemed to have been invalided from service for the purpose of the entitlement rules laid down in Appendix II to these Regulations. Note: The above provision shall also apply to the individuals who are placed in a low medical category while on extended service and are discharged on that account before the completion of the period of their extension.” 12. Rule 7 (b) of Appendix-II (Entitlement Rules) reads as under: “(a) In respect of disease, the following rules shall be observed: (b) A disease which has led to an individual 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 military service. Rule 7 (b) of Appendix-II (Entitlement Rules) reads as under: “(a) In respect of disease, the following rules shall be observed: (b) A disease which has led to an individual 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 military service. However, if medical opinion hold, 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 during service.” 13. After careful reading of Regulation 173, ibid, makes it precise that a disability pension consisting of service element and disability element irrespective or category be granted only if disease is attributable to or aggravated by army service and is assessed at 20% or over. But, under Regulation 173-A where individuals are placed in low medical category (other than category “E”) permanently and are discharged from service because there was no employment available in their own trade/category which is comparable to their low medical category or/and even an individual is unwilling to accept alternative employment, he is entitled for consideration of disability pension claim. 14. However, so far as condition referred to in Regulation 173 is concerned, the disease must be attributable or aggravated by army service. On examination of the facts of petitioners case, as I have already observed, the disability was attributable by army service. 15. Case of the petitioner is covered not under Regulation 173 but under Regulation 173-A of Army Pension Regulations, and he being placed in low medical category CEE (P) and was discharged form service for the reason that other alternative employment in existing trade/category due to his low medical category, is not available; and besides it was not the case where he was not willing to accept alternative employment and for such individuals, both the conditions attributed (a) disability is either attributable to or aggravated by military service, and (b) it is assessed at 20% or over, are not applicable for grant of disability pension under Regulation 173-A of Army Pension Regulations to such individuals. 16. 16. Here I may hasten to observe that it has always to be kept in mind and remembered that person does not acquire disability by choice and individual who acquires disability must be protected by deserving sympathetic treatment and not for himself but for his family also; and the protection has to be provided which may serve purpose and object for which disability pension is being extended to individuals. Beneficial provision in this regard has been made by respondents providing disability pension to such pensioners/individuals under Army Pension Regulations. 17. For grant of disability pension, object behind it is that those who served defence service and because of disability, when one becomes incapable for army service and alternative employment in his trade/category suitable to his nature of duty is not available and the decision is taken for his discharge from service, individual must be provided with disability pension, and being a beneficial provision by this mode, means can be provided for survival and to maintain his family by way of grant of disability pension. 18. Keeping this object into consideration, in my opinion, Regulations 173 and 173-A deals in different sphere. Regulation 173 deals with all kinds of disability where individuals are placed in either of the medical category as defined in classification of disease appended to the Entitlement Rules. But Regulation 173-A is only confined to such individual who are placed in low medical category other than “E” ( permanently) and discharged form services since no alternative employment in his trade/category is available and in such contingency, after being discharged from army service, some means for livelihood has to be provided to them. In my opinion, petitioners case for grant of disability pension is covered under Regulation 173-A and not under Regulation 173 as contended by respondents and both the restrictions as referred to in Regulation 173 with regard to disability being (a) attributable to or aggravated in army service, and (b) assessed at 20% or over, cannot be made applicable for grant of disability pension to such individuals who are covered by Regulation 173-A of Army Pension Regulations. In the absence of which instead of achieving the object of the beneficial provision it will defeat the very purpose for which provision has been inserted by amendment in 1967. 19. In the absence of which instead of achieving the object of the beneficial provision it will defeat the very purpose for which provision has been inserted by amendment in 1967. 19. So far objection raised with regard to the delay in filing writ petition is concerned, in my opinion, denial of disability pension to petitioner for years was a continuous wrong and such action of respondents was in breach of Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India. It is the duty of respondents to have paid disability pension to petitioner when he was discharged from service but he made representations to the authorities, thereafter approached this Court by filing writ petition and in compliance of direction given by this Court in his earlier writ petition, he was communicated with impugned decision dated 10.01.1997 (Annexure-15 ). This being continuous wrong, in present facts and circumstances, there was no latches on the part of petitioner in approaching this Court and immediately after he was communicated with decision (Annexure-15), he preferred this writ petition. In such fact situation, preliminary objection raised of laches on the part of petitioner in approaching this Court does not have any merit and, therefore, stands over-ruled. 20. Consequently this writ petition is allowed. The decision of respondents holding the petitioner not entitled for disability pension vide order dated 10.01.1997 (Annexure-15) conveyed in consonance with orders referred to in Annexure-15, is quashed and set aside. Respondents are accordingly directed to release disability pension with all consequential benefits to the petitioner in terms of Regulation 173-A of Army Pension Regulations, 1961 with effect from the date he became entitled for such pension, i.e., from the date he was placed in a low medical category CEE (P) and discharged from service. Arrears of disability pension after its computation in compliance of aforesaid direction be paid to petitioner within three months, failing which he shall be entitled to interest towards arrears of disability pension @ 9% p.a., thereafter. No order as to costs.