JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Biswajit Mohanty, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, and Shri S.K. Panda, learned Central Govt. Counsel, for the opposite parties. 2. This writ petition was filed in 1996 challenging refusal to re-enroll the Petitioner in the Indian Army. 3. The Petitioner after passing the required tests including cycling test and psychological tests was enrolled as a Sepoy in the Indian Army on 23.3.1974. After completing the basic military training, he was ultimately posted in 19 Guards. During the tenure of his service, he cleared 18 tests under the Army Education Scheme and was also awarded with Sainya Seva Medal and Long Service Medal and due to his excellent service record, in 1984 he was promoted as Havildar and then after clearing the test for further promotion on 20.12.1989, he was promoted and appointed as Naib Subedar. The Petitioner cleared the Desert Battle Course in 1991. In 1992 he was admitted to the Military Hospital but on the ground that he was suffering from Schizophrenia he was discharged from service on 4.5.1992. On 20.3.1993 the Petitioner made an application to the authority for allowing him disability pension but the same was rejected on the ground that his disability was assessed at less than 20%. The Petitioner is, therefore, not getting any disability pension but he is receiving only a meager amount of Rs. 514/- as pension per month. The Petitioner thereafter got himself examined by doctors of Medical Colleges in the State and came to know that he is not suffering from any disease including the one on the ground of which he was invalidated and discharged from service. The facts which are not in dispute are that the Petitioner served the Indian Army from 1974 till 1992 and got the promotions within that period and there was no complaint of his having suffered from Schizophrenia and that he has also been awarded Sainya Seva Medal and Long Service Medal. The Petitioner filed this writ petition claiming that as the aforesaid disease was attributable to and aggravated by service and is less than 20%, he should be re-enrolled and allowed to serve the Indian Army after those treatment in terms of Regulation 143 of the Defence Service Regulations, which provides that ex Servicemen, who are in receipt of disability pension, will not be accepted for re-enrollment in the Army. But those, whose disability pensions have been stopped because of their disability having been re-assessed below 20% by the Re-Survey Boards, will be eligible for re-enrollment. Basing upon the aforesaid regulation, the Petitioner has prayed that a direction be issued for his re-enrollment as his disability has been re-assessed below 20%. 4. The opposite parties in their preliminary counter affidavit have refuted the allegations made in the writ petition and have stated that Regulation 143 is not applicable to the case of the Petitioner and the disability on account of which he was invalidated out of service is a constitutional (Psychiatric) disease and neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service and accordingly rejected the claim of the Petitioner for disability pension. In the additional affidavit filed through Major Naresh Kumar, Senior Record Officer in the office of the Records, the Guards Kamptee, Nagpur, the opposite parties have stated that the Petitioner cannot be re-enrolled as he has already served more than 18 years by the time he was boarded out from service and he was also not eligible for re-enrollment into Army because of his age, i.e., 36 years, by the time he applied for re-enrollment in 1995 and has been discharged from service on medical category 'EEE' 'SCHIZOPHRENIA'. 5. 'EEE' as per Paragraph 5 of Army Order 146/77, photocopy of which is annexed as Annexure-J to the additional affidavit, connotes "Personnel placed in category 'E', i.e., those who are permanent unfit for any military duty will be brought before an invaliding medical board and discharged in the normal way. Such cases should be dealt with as expeditiously as possible." Therefore, according to the learned Central Govt. Counsel, personnel placed in 'EEE' category is unfit for re-enrollment. The other ground taken by the opposite parties is that the disease suffered by the Petitioner is a constitutional one and is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, so the rejection of the claim of the Petitioner for re-enrollment on the grounds of over-aged and being a personnel of 'EEE' category is justified. The rejection of the claim of the Petitioner for the purpose of disability pension is that (i) the percentage of disability is less than 20% and (ii) the disease is neither attributable to or aggravated by military service. 6. Let us first deal with the question whether the Petitioner's disability is less than 20%. The rejection of the claim of the Petitioner for the purpose of disability pension is that (i) the percentage of disability is less than 20% and (ii) the disease is neither attributable to or aggravated by military service. 6. Let us first deal with the question whether the Petitioner's disability is less than 20%. In this regard we may refer to the Medical Board document, Annexure-F to the additional affidavit filed by the O.Ps. The said document indicates that the percentage of disability of the Petitioner is 20% and the probable duration of this degree of disablement is two years. In addition, we may also refer to Annexure-C to the preliminary counter affidavit filed by the O.Ps., in which the rejection of the claim for disability pension was communicated to the Petitioner by the O.I.C., Records, Brigade of Guards, Kamptee, which indicates that as the disease of the Petitioner is attributable/aggravated by service and assessed at less 20%, the case of the Petitioner for disability pension is rejected. A bare perusal of Annexure-C shows that it is a printed form and in the said form against column (a) it has been mentioned "is not attributable to military service" and against column (b) it has been indicated "does not fulfill the following conditions namely it existed before and remained aggravated thereby". Both the aforesaid columns have been scored through and column (c) has been shown to be the reason for rejection of the claim for disability pension, i.e., less than 20% and aggravated by service. On a conjoint reading of the aforesaid two documents, i.e., Annexure-C as well as the medical document filed by the O.Ps. as Annexure-A, makes it clear that the disability of the Petitioner was 20%, i.e., not below 20%, and belies the stand taken by the O.Ps. that it is not attributed and aggravated by the military service. Perusal of Annexure-F to the additional affidavit, which is the proceeding of Invaliding Medical Board, further makes it clear to the extent that the probable duration of this degree of disablement is two years. The Petitioner, as indicated above, has served for more than 18 years and during that period he got promotions and medals due to his excellent service record. There is nothing in the record to show that the disease was a constitutional one and was there from the beginning of his career in the Army. The Petitioner, as indicated above, has served for more than 18 years and during that period he got promotions and medals due to his excellent service record. There is nothing in the record to show that the disease was a constitutional one and was there from the beginning of his career in the Army. The documents placed before us belie the stand taken by the O.Ps. From the documents relied upon by the O.Ps., it is clear that the Petitioner's percentage of disablement is 20% and it is attributable to and aggravated by the service. In our considered opinion, the Petitioner is entitled to get disability pension. 7. Accordingly, we allow this writ petition and direct the opposite parties to compute the disability pension of the Petitioner within four months from the date of communication of the order. The Petitioner is entitled to get disability pension from the date of discharge from service. There shall be no order as to cost. Final Result : Allowed