1. Petitioner through the medium of present writ petition is seeking disability pension on the ground of his invalidation from service having been found medically unfit. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was enrolled in the army on 4th of Dec 1973 and after rendering three years and eleven days of service, he was discharged from service in medical category CEE(PMT). It is stated that after completion of initial training, the petitioner was posted in Kerala at Pangore Kanya Kumari. In the year 1976, when the petitioner was posted at Tang Dhar area of Srinagar, which is situated at a high altitutde, his body could not adapt the climatic conditions and as a result, he suffered from mental disorder. The petitioner remained under treatment for some time and was ultimately shifted to Army Hospital, Badami Bagh, Srinagar. As the condition of the petitioner did not improve, a medical board was held at 92 Base Hospital, Srinagar. His disability namely "personality disorder" was assessed at 60% and he having been placed in medical category aforementioned was boarded out of service being-unfit. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that at the time of his enrolment in the army, he was not suffering from any such disease and it was only after three years of his active service, that he developed the said disease due to hazards of army service. It is stated that as the disease from which he suffered and which led to his discharge from service was attributable to and aggravated by military service and the same was assessed at 60%, the petitioner was entitled to get the disability pension but the same was wrongly denied to him. Reliance in this regard is being placed on Regulation 173 of Army Pension Regulations, 1961. It is stated that in terms of the said Regulation, in case, the disability of an army personnel is assessed at 20% or more and is found attributable to army service, then, the said army personnel is entitled to get the disability pension. It is thus stated that the respondent Union of India rejected the claim of the petitioner for the said benefit in ignorance of the rules governing the field. 4. It is thus stated that the respondent Union of India rejected the claim of the petitioner for the said benefit in ignorance of the rules governing the field. 4. Respondents in their counter have sought dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches stating that the same has been filed after 24 years of discharge of the petitioner from service. So far as Regulation 173 of Army Pension Regulations, 1961, is concerned, it is admitted that an army personnel can be granted disability pension if his disability is assessed at 20% or above and the same is found aggravated by military service. It is, however, denied that the disability of the petitioner was found attributable to army service. Placing reliance on rule 14(b) of the Appendix II of the aforementioned Pension Regulations, it is stated that as the disease from which the petitioner suffered could not be detected on medical examination prior to the acceptance for service, the same would not be deemed to have arisen during service. It is further stated that the petitioners disability was assessed at 30% and not at 60% as alleged by he petitioner. It is thus stated that the claim of the petitioner was rightly rejected as the disability of the petitioner, though assessed at 30% for two years, was not found attributable to army service. 5. Before considering the rival contentions, it would be appropriate to notice some of the relevant provisions of Army Pension Regulations, 1961. Regulation 173 reads 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 disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military service in non-battle casualty and is assessed at 20 percent or over." 6. Rule 14(b) of Appendix II of the aforesaid Regulations, on which reliance is being placed by the respondents, reads as under:- "14(b): A disease which had led to an individuals discharge or death will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in service, if no note of it was made at the time of the individuals acceptance for military service. Rule 14(b) of Appendix II of the aforesaid Regulations, on which reliance is being placed by the respondents, reads as under:- "14(b): A disease which had led to an individuals discharge or death will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in service, if no note of it was made at the time of the individuals acceptance for military 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 not be deemed to have arisen during service." 7. Rule 15 of the said Appendix in so far as relevant is reproduced below:- "15. The onset and progress of some diseases are affected by environmental factors related to service conditions, dietic compulsions, exposure to noise, physical and mental stress and strain. Disease due to infection arising in service, will merit an entitlement of attributability. Nevertheless, attention must be given to the possibility of pre-service history of such conditions which, if approved could rule out entitlement of attributability but would require consideration regarding aggravation................ " 8. A perusal of Regulation 173 quoted above shows that disability pension can be allowed to an army personnel if he is invalided out of service on account of disability which is found attributable to military service and is assessed at 20 percent or above. 9. In terms of Rule 14(b), which was being relied upon by the respondents, an individuals discharge or death is deemed to have arisen in service, in case, no note of it is made at the time of individuals entry into service. However, in case, the medical board holds a different view, then, reasons have to be recorded in this regard. 10. As per rule 15 of Appendix II, there are some diseases which are said to be affected by environmental factors related to service conditions, dietic compulsions, due to noise pollution and physical and mental stress and strain. Even the diseases which occur due to infection arising in service, have been said to be attributable and aggravated by military service. As per the said rule, in case, the aggravation is shown to be not due to service, then, the medical board or the authority concerned has to base its opinion taking into consideration the pre-service history of the individual and the related conditions in this regard. 11. As per the said rule, in case, the aggravation is shown to be not due to service, then, the medical board or the authority concerned has to base its opinion taking into consideration the pre-service history of the individual and the related conditions in this regard. 11. In the case in hand, in terms of Regulation 173, disability pension can be allowed to the petitioner as his disability has been assessed at 30%. The only question, however, is whether his disability is attributable to service or not. 12. The disability of the petitioner i.e. `personality disorder has been opined by the medical board as `constitutional disorder unrelated to service. The said opinion, however, is not based on any reason given by the medical board, which reasons have to be mentioned as per rule 14(b), referred to above that the disease could not have been detected on medical examination prior to the acceptance for service. Even Rule 15 of Appendix II, noticed above, has not been complied with by the Medical Board while forming its opinion that the disability of the petitioner is unrelated to service and is constitutional in nature. The Medical Board has not given any pre-service history of conditions in which the petitioner was living prior to his entry into service, which could have affected the health of the petitioner resulting in the development of aforementioned disease in his body. Therefore, the opinion of the Medical Board minus compliance of the relevant provisions referred to above, cannot be taken into consideration. 13. At this stage, it would be apt to notice the dictionary meaning of "personality disorder" which is the disability in the present case. In New 7th Edition Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, word "personality disorder" has been defined as under:- "a serious mental condition in which behaviour makes it difficult for them to have normal relationships with other people or a normal role in society." 14. A perusal of the above dictionary meaning of `personality disorder shows that it relates to mental disorder. Any one who develops this disease may show signs of abnormality and may not have normal relationships with other people. A perusal of the above dictionary meaning of `personality disorder shows that it relates to mental disorder. Any one who develops this disease may show signs of abnormality and may not have normal relationships with other people. Thus, in order to arrive at a conclusion that the said disability suffered by the petitioner is constitutional in nature not related to service, the Medical Board should have taken into consideration the family history of the petitioner to see as to whether any family member of the petitioner ever suffered from this disease or that the petitioner had shown any abnormality during his childhood, or as indicated above, the conditions in which the petitioner was living prior to joining the army service were such which could result in such a disability, which in the present case, as indicated above, has not been done by the Medical Board. 15. The further question which needs to be considered is as to whether the disability suffered by an army personnel which leads to his invalidation out of service would be a disability attributable to military service when no mention of it is made at the time of his entry into service. The said question was considered by a Division Bench of this court in the case reported as Darshana Devi v. Union of India & Ors, 2008(1) SLJ 1, 2007 JKJ (3) HC 10. After taking note of the various judicial precedents on the subject, in Para 8 of the judgment, it was observed as under:- "8. Therefore, from the judicial precedents referred to above, it can safely be held that if there is no mention regarding disease or disablement at the time of entry of an army personnel into service then the disability on account of which the concerned army personnel is boarded out of service would be deemed to have occurred due to hazards of army service." 16. In Anil Kumar Mishra v. Union, of India, 1996(3) SCT 778, the writ petitioner was medically fit at the time of his recruitment. Later in the course of service, he developed some physical problem. The disability in the said case was held to be suffered on account of stress and strain of military service and during the course of service. In Anil Kumar Mishra v. Union, of India, 1996(3) SCT 778, the writ petitioner was medically fit at the time of his recruitment. Later in the course of service, he developed some physical problem. The disability in the said case was held to be suffered on account of stress and strain of military service and during the course of service. It was observed that in case no mention is made regarding disability at the time of enrolment in service, then it can safely be presumed that the disability occurred on account of stress and strain of army service. To the same effect is the view taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case reported as Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India, 1996(4) SCT 154. 17. Even in terms of Rule 14(b) of Appendix II of the aforementioned Regulations, as noticed above, a disability which leads to discharge of an army personnel would be ordinarily deemed to have arisen in service, if no note of it is made at the time of his entry into service and if the Medical Board holds an opinion that the disease is not related to service, then, it has to state reasons in this regard. In the case in hand also, there is nothing on record to show that petitioner showed any signs of the aforementioned disability at the time of his entry into service. Even there is no note in the Medical Board proceedings that the said disability could not have been detected on medical examination prior to the petitioners acceptance for service or that the petitioner had shown some abnormality during his childhood or any of the family member of the petitioner, as indicated above, ever suffered from such a disease. 18. In view of the above discussion, the only conclusion which can be arrived at is that the petitioner was not suffering from the disability which led to his invalidation out of service and it was only due to the hazards of army service that he developed this disability. 19. The respondents have also taken a stand that the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 20. In this regard, it be seen that in the case of pension, it is a recurring cause which continues from month to month. 19. The respondents have also taken a stand that the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 20. In this regard, it be seen that in the case of pension, it is a recurring cause which continues from month to month. However, in case a petition for such a cause is filed after a long delay, the same has to be considered taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the said case. In the present case, the petitioner after his discharge did not sleep over the matter. He has been repeatedly representing before the authorities concerned for settling his claim. A reference of these representations has been made in paragraphs 9 to 30 of the writ petition when finally he served a legal notice to the respondents on 31st of May `01, which fact as mentioned in paragraph 31 of the writ petition has not been denied by the respondents. Therefore, taking into consideration the said aspect of the matter, rejecting the claim of the petitioner solely on the ground of delay and laches, more so, when the petitioner has all-along been representing before the authorities concerned, would not be just and in the interest of justice. 21. In Loka Ram v. Haryana State Electricity Board and another, 1995(5) SLR 566, the Punjab and Haryana High Court while considering the question of delay in the matter of pension has held as under:- "Firstly, the plea of delay may be considered. Admittedly, the petitioner had retired from service in the year 1983 and had made a claim for pension. It was rejected vide letter dated May 19, 1988 on the ground that the total service rendered by him was 9 years, 3 months and 22 days, and that the benefit of the service rendered in work charge capacity was not admissible. He represented again. Having failed to get a reply, the petitioner approached this court through the present petition. In this situation, it cannot be said that the petitioner has become disentitled to the grant of pension. This is especially so in view of the fact that it is a continuing cause of action and even if the claim is not made immediately or within a reasonable time, it cannot be defeated by the mere lapse of time. No third-partys rights have come into existence. Delay does not prejudice the interest of the employer. This is especially so in view of the fact that it is a continuing cause of action and even if the claim is not made immediately or within a reasonable time, it cannot be defeated by the mere lapse of time. No third-partys rights have come into existence. Delay does not prejudice the interest of the employer. If at all, it has kept the money which was required to be paid to the employee. The mere fact that the poor employee has not claimed the money for a long time, does not mean that his right has since been extinguished. Consequently, the plea of delay cannot be accepted." 22. In Gurdip Singh v. Union of India, 1997(3) SCT 414, the writ petitioner was held entitled to disability pension. The plea taken by Union of India that there was inordinate delay in filing the writ petition was rejected. What was observed in this regard is reproduced below:- ".......... It would be grossly unfair if the Government is permitted to take advantage of the situation in which the employee is placed and his claim for pension was to be rejected only on the ground of delay. In fact, this court has already taken that view. Reference in this behalf may be made in Sardara Singh v. Union of India, 1992(6) SLR 683. It was held as under: - "It is no doubt correct that the petitioner has filed the writ petition after a lapse of almost 40 years. A perusal of the order, quoted above, however, shows that the petitioner had been regularly representing to the authorities and his claim was declined only on the ground that the disability was not attributable to or aggravated by military service. This being factually incorrect, we have no alternative but to quash the order. Furthermore in the circumstances of the case and more particularly the continuing disability (sic) delay in approaching the court even in the matter of pension cannot completely defeat his claim. We consider it to be in the interest of justice to allow his claim for the payment of pension. However, on account of delay, we decline the petitioners prayer for the payment of interest." 23. We consider it to be in the interest of justice to allow his claim for the payment of pension. However, on account of delay, we decline the petitioners prayer for the payment of interest." 23. In Shiv Dass v. Union of India and ors, Mil LJ 2007 SC 123, the Apex Court while considering the above aspect of the matter, observed that delay and laches though one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Courts while exercising their powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the discretion has to be exercised judiciously. In the above case, the petitioner who was enrolled in the army in the year 1965 was boarded out of service in the year 1982. His claim for disability pension was rejected by the authorities concerned in the year 1983. The writ petition was filed in the High Court in the year 2005, which was dismissed on the ground of delay. While condoning the delay, the Apex Court observed as under:- "In the case of pension the cause of action actually continues from month to month. That, however, cannot be a ground to overlook delay in filing the petition. It would depend upon the facts of each case. If petition is filed beyond a reasonable period say three years normally the Court would reject the same or restrict the relief which could be granted to a reasonable period of about three years. The High Court did not examine whether on merit appellant had a case. If on merits it would have found that there was no scope for interference, it would have dismissed the writ petition on that score alone. In the peculiar circumstances, we remit the matter to the High Court to hear the writ petition on merits. If it is found that the claim for disability pension is unsustainable in law, then it would mould the relief but in no event grant any relief for a period exceeding three years from the date of presentation of the writ petition..............." 24. In view of the above proposition of law, the stand of the respondents that the petition is highly belated cannot be accepted. 25. For the reasons mentioned above, this petition is allowed. In view of the above proposition of law, the stand of the respondents that the petition is highly belated cannot be accepted. 25. For the reasons mentioned above, this petition is allowed. The disability of the petitioner i.e. `Personality disorder is held to be a disability which can occur due to hazards of army service and as there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner showed any signs of the said disability prior to his acceptance for military service or even after three years of his enrolment, the same is held attributable to army service. The disability having been assessed at 30%, the petitioner is held entitled to disability pension in terms of Regulation 173 noticed above. The petitioner shall also be entitled to arrears of disability pension but taking into consideration that the petition has been filed after about 24 years of discharge of service, the claim for arrears is restricted to three years prior to filing of the writ petition. So far as claim of the petitioner for grant of interest is concerned, the same is rejected. Let the disability pension along with the arrears aforementioned be released in favour of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date, a copy of this order is made available to respondents by the petitioner. However, in case, the disability pension along with arrears is not released within the stipulated period as mentioned above, the petitioner in that eventuality shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the arrears of disability pension. Disposed of accordingly.