Judgment Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. In order to challenge the judgment and decree dated 27.9.1996 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for the grant of disability pension, as well as the judgment dated decree dated 27.8.1998 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby his appeal has been dismissed, Ram Parkash has filed this appeal. 2. The primary contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant suffered the disability of low vision and the said disability is attributable to the service conditions undergone by him. It has been contended by Mr. Bajaj, learned counsel for the appellant, when the appellant joined the Air Force, he had under gone rigorous medical examination and after he was found medically fit, only then he was enrolled in the Indian Air Force. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the disability of low vision can very easily be attributed to the service conditions. The counsel further contended that the Courts below have erred in holding that the defective vision is constitutional and is hereditary. He contends that the fact whether the low vision is constitutional or hereditary cannot be generalised. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a Single Bench judgment of this Court reported as Ex-Nk. Budh Ram V/s. Union of India and Ors. 2001(3) Recent Services Judgments 190, in order to fortify the claim of the appellant for the grant of disability pension. It has been contended by the learned counsel that facts of the aforesaid authority are quite similar to the facts appearing in the present case. 3. The contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant, have been controverted by Mr. M.S. Guglani, learned counsel for the respondents. The counsel has placed reliance on the Supreme Court authority reported as Union of India and Ors. V/s. Dhir Singh China, (Colonel Retd.), . 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the case file as well as the evidence led by the parties. The following question arises for consideration in the present appeal:- Whether or not the disability suffered by the appellant can be attributed to the service conditions of the Air Force service? 5. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the case file as well as the evidence led by the parties. The following question arises for consideration in the present appeal:- Whether or not the disability suffered by the appellant can be attributed to the service conditions of the Air Force service? 5. In short, it is the claim of the appellant that he suffered the disability of low vision due to cataract in both the eyes due to bad service conditions which the appellant had to undergo during his service tenure. However, the claim of the appellant is denied by the respondents on the ground that the appellant had never suffered any injury in his eyes during the period he remained in service. It has been contended on their behalf that the appellant has failed to prove that the disability is attributable to or aggravated by his service with the India Air Force. 6. I find force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is not denied that at the time of his enrollment in the Air Force on 1.5.1970, the appellant had been put to rigorous medical examination. Every part of the body at the time of enrollment into service is thoroughly examined by the Medical Wing of the Defence Services. It is also not denied that the appellant was prematurely discharged from service on account of his disability owning to cataract in both of his eyes, when he had only rendered service for 15 years. It is the case of the appellant that during the period of his service, he had served in Eastern Sector on active service and also in Indo Pak War and had also undergone various other operations. It is also the claim of the appellant that he had to perform arduous nature of duties and was also working under unhygienic conditions of cleaning the camp area, including the Air Craft Parking areas. At times, he was detailed to cut dangerous shrubs, which could affect his eyes and he also used to receive minor injuries in the eyes while cutting the shrubs while performing official duties. In the written statement the defence taken by the respondent is that the record of his posting in the Eastern Sector on active service in Indo-Pak War was not available. In the written statement the defence taken by the respondent is that the record of his posting in the Eastern Sector on active service in Indo-Pak War was not available. With regard to the performing of duties in unhygienic conditions, the respondents have simply denied his claim. From the reply filed by the respondents it can only be deduced that there is no specific denial of the allegations made by the appellant. In case the record with regard to the posting of the appellant in the Eastern Sector at the time of Indo Pak War is not available with the authorities concerned, the appellant cannot be put to blame. So far his allegation that he was subjected to perform arduous nature of duties during the span of his service with the Indian Air Force, the presumption can easily be drawn in the affirmative and there can be no doubt that a person in a Defence Service is always required to perform arduous nature of duties. In Ex.-NK. Budh Ram V/s. Union of India and Ors., 2001(3) Recent Services Judgments 190, it has been held by this Court that invalidation and discharge of the petitioner due to eye sight affected due to operation of cataract(sic) entitles him to disability pension. The ratio of the said authority is squarely applicable to the facts appearing in the present case. In the present instant case the respondents have failed to show by leading cogent, reliable and satisfactory evidence that the disease suffered by the appellant was not attributable to his service in the Air Force. In Ex.Sep. Surjit Singh V/s. Union of India and Ors., 1996(2) R.S. J. 371, his Lordship was pleased to hold that "whenever a person is discharged from Army on account of reasons of health and physical disability, it has to be assumed that the service conditions have contributed to his physical condition. Unless this presumption is rebutted by proper medical evidence, the individual is entitled to the grant of disability pension." The ratio of the authority Union of India and Ors. V/s. Dhir Singh China, Colonel (Retd.) (supra) is not applicable to tie facts appearing in the present case. Unless this presumption is rebutted by proper medical evidence, the individual is entitled to the grant of disability pension." The ratio of the authority Union of India and Ors. V/s. Dhir Singh China, Colonel (Retd.) (supra) is not applicable to tie facts appearing in the present case. In the said case, respondent Dhir Singh China had suffered the heart attack as well as Open Angle Glaucoma in both eyes after his superannuation from the service, whereas in the present case the appellant was discharged prematurely from service owing to the cataract and consequential low vision in his eyes. Thus, the ratio of the authority cited by the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents cannot be made applicable to the facts appearing in the present case. 7. Still further, in the case Virender Kumar V/s. Union of India and Ors., 1992(2) S.L.R. 512, a Navy Jawar was operated upon for complicated cataract and it was held that the disease of cataract was attributable to the Navy Service. In Mohan Lal V/s. Union of India and Ors., 1995(5) S.L.R. 183, the point involved was whether the disease of cataract is attributable to Army Service or not and the answer was in the affirmative by the Hon ble Division Bench of this court. As the facts of the present case are squarely covered by the ratio of the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, I have no hesitation to hold that the disability of low vision suffered by the appellant owing to disease of cataract is entirely attributable to his service with the Indian Air Force. 8. Consequently, I set aside the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below, being without any merit. The appellant is held entitled to the benefits of disability pension with effect from 38 months prior to the date of institution of the civil suit by him. It is directed that the appellant be released the benefits granted to him within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment, failing which the authorities shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. However, I make no order as to costs. The appeal stands allowed accordingly.