JUDGMENT A.K. Sikri, J.:- The petitioner herein was enrolled in the regular Army as combatant soldier on 21.7.1975 and on completion of basic military training was posted to 15 Jat Regiment w.ej. 11.8.1976. In the year 1985, the petitioner started having health problems and was treated in the Military Hospital for Neurosis, a psychiatric disease. It was due to psychiatric problem that the petitioner remained under mental depression. On 28.6.1989, the petitioner was downgraded to Low Medical Category CEE (Temporary) for six months on account of Neurosis. 2. The petitioner had incurred five red ink entries as mentioned below: . (a) 28 days rigorous imprisonment on 29.3.1982 for committing offence under Section 63 of the Army Act, 1950; (b) 28 days rigorous imprisonment on 3.6.1985 for committing offence under Section 39(b) of the Army Act, 1950; (c) 28 days rigorous imprisonment and 14 days detention in military custody on 12.12.1986 for committing offence under Section 39(b) of the Army Act, 1950;, (d) 7 days rigorous imprisonment on 18.10.1989 for committing offence under Section 38(1) of the Army Act, 1950; and (e) 14 days rigorous imprisonment on 15.1.1990 for committing offence under Section 39(a) of the Army Aet,1950, After awarding five Red Ink Entries, a show-cause notice dated 17.1.1990 was served upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be discharged from service under Army Rule 13(3)III(v), The petitioner submitted his reply dated 19.1.1990 which was not considered satisfactory and he was discharged from service on 31.1.1990 in strict adherence of Army Rule 13(3)III(v). Since the petitioner was in low medical category, he was brought before Release Medical Board on 19.4.1990, at Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt. The Release Medical Board assessed disability at 20%. 3. It is stated in the petition that the Medical Board without following Regulation 423 of Regulations for Medical Services for the Armed Forces and Guide to Medical Officers for Military pension made the disease of the petitioner as not attributable without assigning any reason on AFMSF-16 and this act of the Medical Board is arbitrary, illegal and unjust and requires to be set aside by this Court. It is further stated that on 30.5.1992 the Record Office intimated the petitioner that his disability pension claim had been rejected by CDA(P), Allahabad on the ground that he has been discharged on disciplinary grounds. On 20.7.1992, the petitioner sent an appeal to Govt. It is further stated that on 30.5.1992 the Record Office intimated the petitioner that his disability pension claim had been rejected by CDA(P), Allahabad on the ground that he has been discharged on disciplinary grounds. On 20.7.1992, the petitioner sent an appeal to Govt. of India Ministry of Defence against the said rejection of his disability pension. The said appeal of the petitioner was rejected by the Government on 28.10.1994 because the petitioner was dismissed from service. Thereafter petitioner kept on sending reminders but all have gone in vain. 4. On 16.1.1997, petitioner filed a Writ Petition (Civil) No. 254 of 1997 before this Court seeking a direction of this Court for grant of disability pension. This petition in a batch of 23 other writ petitions came up for hearing on 15.11.2002 and this Court dismissed the leading CWP No. 3868/ 93 among said batch filed by Ex Signalman Shri Bhagwan and remanded the batch of 23 writ petitions to the PCDA(P) Allahabad for reconsideration and held each writ petitioner entitled to the litigation cost of Rs. 2500/-. 5. On 10.12.2004 PCDA(P) Allahabad issued a speaking order stating therein that in compliance of High Court order dated 15.11.2002 case of the petitioner has been re-examined and it has been found that the petitioner was discharged on administrative grounds hence disability pension cannot be granted. It is also stated therein that as per Regulation 132 of Pension Regulation Part-l (1961) minimum 15 years qualifying service is mandatory to earn to service pension. As the petitioner has not completed 115 years of qualifying service, petitioner is not entitled to service pension, as per existing rules. It is further stipulated that regarding disability pension, Regulation 173 of Pension Regulation Part-1 stipulates that the disability pension is admissible only when the individual is invalided out on account of disability/disease and the same is considered as attributable to or aggravated by military service. It is stated that in the case of petitioner the disease "Neurosis" has been considered by the Release Medical Board as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. Being Psychiatric disorder and also due to stressful situation in domestic life; therefore petitioner is not entitled to disability pension. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred this petition in May, 2005 challenging the orders dated 30.5.1992 and 10.12.2004 passed by the respondent authorities rejecting his claim for disability pension on various grounds. 7. Being Psychiatric disorder and also due to stressful situation in domestic life; therefore petitioner is not entitled to disability pension. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred this petition in May, 2005 challenging the orders dated 30.5.1992 and 10.12.2004 passed by the respondent authorities rejecting his claim for disability pension on various grounds. 7. We may note at the outset that though the petitioner has slated that on the basis of red ink entries his services could not be terminated, in the process, the said termination is not challenged and there is no prayer for quashing of the termination order as well. In fact, the only relief claimed is for payment of service pension as well as disability pension. 8. Insofar as service pension is concerned, what is argued is that the petitioner has already completed 14 years and 192 days of service in the Army; and there is a provision for condonation of deficiency of service for the purpose of pension up to one year as per the Regulation 126 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (part-I) and the letter dated 14.8.2001 Government of India, Ministry of Defence. It is argued that had the services been not terminated on the basis of red ink entry, the petitioner could have even otherwise completed requisite 15 years of service to earn service pension. 9. The legal position is clear that on the basis of such red ink entries, without following the appropriate procedure, services of the petitioner could not have been terminated. This aspect stands determined by series of judgments taken note of in WP (C) No. 3874/1995 entitled Ex. Hav. Satbir Singh v. The Chief of Army Staff & Ors., by a judgment pronounced today whereby setting aside such a termination. However, no such relief can be granted to the petitioner herein as he has not prayed for this relief. However, had there not been an illegal termination, the petitioner would have completed 15 years of service which would have entitled him to get the service pension. In view thereof, a valid ground is made for condonation of deficiency of service, which is around 173 days. 10. Insofar as disability pension is concerned, the same is primarily rejected on the ground that the petitioner was discharged from service under Army Rule 13(3)III(v) as "service no longer required". In view thereof, a valid ground is made for condonation of deficiency of service, which is around 173 days. 10. Insofar as disability pension is concerned, the same is primarily rejected on the ground that the petitioner was discharged from service under Army Rule 13(3)III(v) as "service no longer required". As we have held that the termination could not have been made on this ground, the case of the petitioner for grant of disability pension also needs consideration, in right perspective. 11. In these circumstances, we set aside the impugned orders dated 30.5.1992 and 10.12.2004 and direct the respondents to take appropriate decision in the matter in view of the observations made by us for condoning the deficiency in service for the purpose of service pension. His case shall also be considered on merits for disability pension on the premise that his services were not terminated. Appropriate orders in this behalf shall be passed within two months from today Ordered accordingly.