JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner by this petition for writ has prayed for directions to the respondents to grant disability element of pension to him as he was entitled to be treated as invalid at the time of his release being in a lower medical category than that in which he was recruited. The categorisation to a lower medical category was as a consequence of disability arose which is attributable or aggravated during the services of Indian Air Force. 2. The facts necessary for adjudication of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Air Force on 27.12.1967 in the Non-technical Stream. At the time of enrollment with the Indian Air Force the petitioner was thoroughly examined by competent medical officers and was placed in medical category 'AYE'. The petitioner was again medically examined before commencing of the training at Jalahalli (Banglore) and he was again placed in medical category 'AYE'. After successfully completion of training the petitioner was posted to a Field Unit in the Eastern Sector and was also attested with Indian Air Force on 29.12.1969. The petitioner was promoted to the rank of Corporal in the year 1972. The petitioner was selected for re-mustering to the trade of Instructor/Repairs II. At the time of 1 selection for re-mustering for the trade referred above, the petitioner was again medically examined and he was placed in Medical Category 'AYE'. 3. The petitioner was placed in Medical Category 'CEE' (Temporary) for a period of six months and then Medical Category 'GEE' (Permanent) in the month of December 1976. The petitioner, thereafter, was promoted to the rank of Sargent in the year 1987. 4. It is averred by the petitioner that while serving under the respondent No 4, a hard area tenure, he suffered from High Blood Pressure and was diagnosed as a case of 'Essential Hypertension'. This was diagnosed in the year 1989 and the petitioner remained under treatment at Military Hospital, Jalapa (Bermer) and also at Military Hospital Ahmedabad. The petitioner, thereafter, was brought before the Medical Board in the month of June 1990 and his disabilities were assessed as under: Disease On set Category (a) Eales' Disease Rt. Eye Aug. 1975 CEE (P) (b) Essential Hypertension cum obesity Sep. 1989 BEE (P) 5. The petitioner was declared unfit to perform duties requiring good binocular vision. The petitioner, thereafter, was brought before the Medical Board in the month of June 1990 and his disabilities were assessed as under: Disease On set Category (a) Eales' Disease Rt. Eye Aug. 1975 CEE (P) (b) Essential Hypertension cum obesity Sep. 1989 BEE (P) 5. The petitioner was declared unfit to perform duties requiring good binocular vision. Accordingly, he was released from services in the month of December 1993. It is an admitted position of the parties that the petitioner suffered disabilities more than 30%. The respondents after assessing the disabilities of the petitioner at the time of his release, more than 30%, turned down the disability element of pension to the petitioner on the count that the disability was neither attributable to the Air Force service nor it was aggravated thereby. 6. The petitioner being aggrieved by the decision referred to above preferred an appeal before the competent authority but the same was rejected by the appellate authority by the order dated 15.11.1986. The order dated 15.11.1986 mentions that the ,disability, on the basis of which the category of the petitioner was lowered down, is not attributable to Air Force Services as the same was selected in the year 1975 and in the year 1989 at the time of lowering down medical category the petitioner was serving in peace area. The appellate authority also relied upon the recommendations made by the Medical Board to the effect that the disability occurred to the petitioner is not attributable to the military services and was also not aggravated during the military services. It is pertinent to note here that while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for disability element on the counts retorted above no reason to substantiate the findings given by the medical board was mentioned by the appellate authority. The petitioner in the circumstances referred above preferred the present writ petition claiming for disability element on release from the services of Indian Air Force. 7. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the Pension Regulations for the Air Force 1961 Part- I, vide Section IV-Disability Pensionary Awards, Rule 153 provides that 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 Service and is assessed at 20% or over. It further provides that the question whether a disability is attributable to or aggravated by Air Force Service shall be determined under Regulations in Appendix II. According to the petitioner he was released from the services of Indian Air Force under the Release Regulations. The petitioner has further emphasised that Rule 7(b) of the Entitlement Rules provides that a disease which has led to an individual's discharge or death will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in service if no note of it was made at the time of the individual's acceptance for Air Force Service. On the basis of the provisions of Rule 7(b) the petitioner has claimed himself as a disable as at the time of his enrollment in Indian Air Force services no note was made with regard to the disease and at the same time there was no medical opinion with reasons to the effect that the disease could not have been detected on medical examination prior to the acceptance for service. 8. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that the diseases of the petitioner were constitutional in nature, therefore, there was no question for grant of disability pension to him. It is averred in the reply that the constitutional diseases are attached with the person-concerned by birth and there is no question of attributability of such diseases to Military Service or its aggravation during the Military Services irrespective of place of posting. It is also averred in the reply to the writ petition that a competent Medical Board found the disabilities with the petitioner as constitutional in nature. Therefore, he was rightly denied disability pension. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. As stated above the contention of the petitioner is that he served the respondents in various capacities under various Units with Indian Air Force he was placed in category 'AYE' and at the time of release from services he was placed in a lower category i.e. category 'CEE'. The petitioner has claimed that he is entitled for disability pension as provided under Rule 153 by treating him as a person invalided. The petitioner has claimed that he is entitled for disability pension as provided under Rule 153 by treating him as a person invalided. It is also emphasised that at the time of his enrollment in services there was no note with regard to the disease which led to lowering down the medical category of the petitioner and also that no reason was given by the Medical Authorities to the effect that the disease which is a foundation for lowering down the medical category could not have been detected prior to acceptance for service. In view of it, he is deemed to be a person invalid, and as such entitled for disability pension under Rule 153 referred above. 10. The contention of the petitioner is fortified by the judgment of this Court in, Ex. Sgt. Tejpal Singh v. Union of India & Ors.S.B. Civil Writ Petitioner No. 1083/2001 decided on 21.2.2004 . In the case of Tejpal Singh (supra) learned Single Bench of this Court held that if no note was appended at the time of joining of services to the effect that the person was suffering from such diseases which were constitutional and no medical opinion with reasons is given to the effect that the diseases were not detectable on medical examination prior to his acceptance for service then in the light of Rule 7(b) of the Rules of 1961 a defence personnel is required to be presumed to be suffering from a disease attributed or aggravated on account of Air Force Service. In the aforesaid case learned Single Bench of this Court allowed the disability pension to the person treating him a disable for the purpose of grant of disablement pension under Rule 153 of the Air Force Rules, 1961. 11. The Division Bench of this Court by the judgment dated 2.12.2004 in SAW No. 1/2005 affirmed the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 12. 11. The Division Bench of this Court by the judgment dated 2.12.2004 in SAW No. 1/2005 affirmed the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 12. In the case of Dariyav Singh v. Union of India and Ors 1997(3) WLC (Raj.) 693 ., also it was held by this Court that in the event no note is given in medical examination report at the time of joining the military services with regard to the suffering of the disease or if no reason is given by the medical board at the time of release from service to the effect that such disease could not have been detected at the time of joining of services with reasons, then in light of Rule 7(b) of the Rules of 1961 a defence personnel is required to be treated as a disabled person entitled for pension in accordance with the Rule 153 of the Rules of 1961. 13. The petitioner was enrolled in the services of Indian Air Force in the year 1967 and admittedly at the time of his enrollment he was placed in medical category 'AYE'. The petitioner continued in category 'AYE' up till 1976 and in the year 1976 for the first time he was placed in a lower category i.e. medical category `CEE'. A promotion was, thereafter, accorded to the petitioner and the petitioner was released from services in the year 1993. During the service tenure he served the Indian Air Force in various Units and at various places including hard stations. According to Rule 153 of the Rules of 1961 disability pension may be granted to an individual- (i) who is Invalided from service on account of disability which is attributable to or aggravated by Air Force Service, and (ii) such disease is assessed at 20% or over. There is no dispute to the fact that the disability of the petitioner was assessed more than 20%, therefore, the only question required to be adjudged is that whether the invalidity of the petitioner can be attributable or aggravated by Air Force Service. The Regulation 1 of Entitlement Regulations (Appendix-II to the Rules of 1961) provides that an individual who at the time of his release is in lower category than that in which he was recruited will be treated as invalid from service. The petitioner being lowered to category 'CEE' from 'AYE' was certainly required Lo be treated an invalid individual. The Regulation 1 of Entitlement Regulations (Appendix-II to the Rules of 1961) provides that an individual who at the time of his release is in lower category than that in which he was recruited will be treated as invalid from service. The petitioner being lowered to category 'CEE' from 'AYE' was certainly required Lo be treated an invalid individual. The question now remains is that whether such in validness could be attributed to or aggravated by Air Force Service. 14. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that disability pension can be given only after affirmative establishment of the fact s to whether the injury sustained or aggravated was due to Military Service as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Baljeet Singh (1996) 11 SCC 315 and the petitioner has failed to do so. There cannot be any dispute with regard to law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Facts are always required to be established by cogent evidence but at the same time facts also stand proved by circumstances. To draw an objective and valid resumption on basis of the circumstances legislation of deeming provisions is quite usual in legislative jurisprudence. The Legislature in its own wisdom it corporated Rule 7(b) to draw presumption about invalidity. The Rule 7(b) (appendix-II) reads as under: "7(b). A disease which has led to an individual's discharge or death will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in service if no note of its was made at the time of the individual's 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 be deemed to have arisen during service." 15. There is no dispute that at the time of enrollment in the services of Indian Air force no note was made by the authorities, who medically examined the petitioner, to the effect that he was suffering from disease of Hypertension or Eales' disease. The counsel for the respondents failed to satisfy as to why the medical board, examining the petitioner in the year 1993, has not supplied any reasons to hold that it was not possible to detect the aforesaid diseases at the time of enrollment in services. The counsel for the respondents failed to satisfy as to why the medical board, examining the petitioner in the year 1993, has not supplied any reasons to hold that it was not possible to detect the aforesaid diseases at the time of enrollment in services. A presumption therefore is required to be drawn in light of Rule 7(b) referred above to the effect that the petitioner is to be treated an invalid individual. 16. I, also do not find any force in the contention of the counsel for respondent that the petitioner had acquired the disease by birth, therefore, the same may not be attributable to Air Force service. A case has been sought to be made out that the disease was constitutional but nothing has been produced before this Court to show either by production of any record, particularly the opinion of medical board that the disease was constitutional. For the sake of argument even if it is accepted that the disease was constitutional but still then the same can be brought within the purview of other clause namely that it was aggravated by Air Force Service. 17. In view of it I am of considered opinion that the petitioner has been wrongly denied the disabled pension by not treating him an invalid person.Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The orders denying invalidity pension to the petitioner are quashed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner an invalid person and disability pension be allowed to him from the date of release from services i.e. 31st December, 1993 under Rule 153 of the Rules of 1961. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. Cost of the petition is made easy.Writ Petition allowed. *******