Navaniti Prasad Singh, J. – Petitioner, who was a Subedar in the Indian Army, was medically boarded out. In other words, he was medically discharged prior to his date of superannuation. He claims that as he suffered medical disability, which was certified to be 40% for first two years of discharge, he was entitled to special disability pension. It is not in dispute that he is in receipt of regular pension having served for more than 28 years, Army authorities have rejected his claim on the simple ground that the medical disability attributable to him is not attributable to service in the Army or aggravated or caused by service in the Army and, thus, he is not entitled to additional disability pension. Petitioner challenges the correctness of the same. 2. It is not disputed that petitioner, while in service, was diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma as a consequence thereof he was treated in the Military Hospital and then shifted to Military Hospital at Pune. He was treated there and one of his kidneys was removed. He was, thus, left with one kidney. Upon this, he was medically discharged being unfit for Army Service. Considering his over 28 years of service, he was granted his pension. He represented that he should be granted special disability pension but that was refused on the ground that the disability was not attributable or aggravated by Military Service. Being aggrieved by the said decision, petitioner filed this writ petition. 3. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the case of petitioner is governed by Rule 173 of the Pension Regulations that is Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961. Petitioner states that once while being medically boarded out, the medical opinion was that petitioner suffered with 40% disability for two years and upon this finding alone, he should be granted disability pension. Having heard the parties, in my view, the writ petition does not merit consideration. Before proceeding further, I must notice Rule 173 which is as under : – “173. Unless otherwise specifically provided, a disability pension may be granted to an individual who is invalided from service on account of a disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military service and is assessed at 20% or over. The question whether a disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service be determined under the rules in Appendix – II”. 4. The question whether a disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service be determined under the rules in Appendix – II”. 4. The first thing to be seen is whether the disability occasioned upon the petitioner was attributable to or aggravated by Military Service. Then it has to be above 20%. A reference to the Rule would show that between the two, there is the word “and”. Usage of this word “and” is of some significance. Both the conditions have to be simultaneously satisfied for entitlement of disability pension. The disability must be caused or must be attributable to Military Service and at the same time, it must be assessed at 20% or over and is not to be read as “or” or as “either”. It is not disjunctive. 5. Thus seen, the medical opinion being clear that it was renal cell carcinoma, which is not attributable to Military Service, the very first consideration of Rule 173 does not apply and, therefore, even if the disability is taken to be 40%, it is of no help to the petitioner for both the conditions are not attracted simultaneously. 6. So far as 40% disability is concerned, what is admitted in the counter affidavit is that the Medical Board certified disability at 40% for two years that is immediately post operative and not permanent disability of 40%. Though this was not relevant, I wish to clarify this position. 7. Thus, the petitioner, not falling within the scope of Rule 173, he is not entitled to disability pension. The writ petition, thus, fails and is dismissed accordingly.