JUDGMENT : Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J. 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 31.12.2001 passed in OWP No. 567/1999. The case of the petitioner before the writ court was that within four months of his joining the Army, he was detected with Catalonic Schizophrenia and was placed in medical category EEE and invalided out of service on 25.4.1955. 2. The claim of the petitioner for grant of disability pension was rejected on the basis of the opinion of the medical board that the disorder suffered by the petitioner was constitutional in nature and was neither attributable to nor aggravated on account of his military service. 3. The writ court by virtue of judgment and order impugned allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to re-examine the petitioner to assess his disability and thereafter his claim for all pensionary benefits. 4. Heard the counsel for the parties. 5. The entire emphasis of the counsel for the appellants was on the fact that the disability suffered by the petitioner was constitutional in nature and in the opinion of the medical board, the same was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. 6. Reference was made to (2009) 9 SCC 140 titled Secretary, Ministry of Defence & Ors. v. A.V. Damodaran & Ors emphasizing the point that the opinion of the medical board should be given due weight-age and primacy in the matter of ascertaining as to whether or not the injuries/illness sustained was due to or was aggravated by military service which contributed to invalidation from military service. 7. In the judgment supra, the Apex court was of the view that the said release/invaliding medical board consists of three doctors who assess an individual, keeping in view his clinical profile, the date and place of onset of invaliding disease/disability and service conditions, and then draws a conclusion as to whether the disease or injury has a causal connection with military service or not and based upon that make their recommendations as regards whether an army personnel could be considered for grant of disability element of pension or not. Thus, it held that the opinion of the Medical Board needs to be given priority. 8. Thus, it held that the opinion of the Medical Board needs to be given priority. 8. Placing reliance on the aforementioned judgment, the counsel for the appellants urged that the learned writ court could not have brushed aside the opinion of the medical board and directed the consideration of the petitioner for grant of disability pension. The Rule Position. 9. Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army 1961 envisages grant of disability pension which reads as under:- "Primary conditions for the grant of disability pension. 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 and is assessed at 20 percent or above. The question whether a disability is attributable to or aggravated to by military service shall be determined under the rule in Appendix-II." 10. Appendix 2 prescribes the Entitlement rules for Causality Pensionary Awards, 1982 promulgated by Ministry of Defence, relevant portion whereof reads as under- "5. The approach to the question of entitlement to casualty pensionary awards and evaluation of disabilities shall be based on the following presumption:- PRIOR TO AND DURING SERVICE: (a) A member is presumed to have been in sound physical and mental condition upon entering service except as to physical disabilities noted or recorded at the time of entrance; (b) In the event of his subsequently being discharged from service on medical grounds any deterioration in his health which has taken place is due to service; Rule 6 is also relevant and provides for as under:- 6. Disablement or death shall be accepted as due to military service provided it is certified by appropriate medical authority that:- (a) the disablement is due to a wound, injury or disease which- (i) is attributable to military service, or (ii) existed before or arose during military service and has been and remains aggravated thereby. This will also include the precipitating/hastening of the onset of a disability. (b) the death was due to or hastened by- (i) a wound, injury or disease which was attributable to military service, or (ii) the aggravation by military service of they would, injury or disease which existed before or arose during military service. Rule 14(b) is also relevant and envisages as under: Rule 14(a). "Rule 14(b). (b) the death was due to or hastened by- (i) a wound, injury or disease which was attributable to military service, or (ii) the aggravation by military service of they would, injury or disease which existed before or arose during military service. Rule 14(b) is also relevant and envisages as under: Rule 14(a). "Rule 14(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 it was made at the time of the individual's 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 deemed to have arisen during service." 11. In exercise of the powers vested under Section 192 of Army Act, Central Government has framed Regulations 423. It would be pertinent to reproduce Regulation 423(A & C) which reads as under: (a) "For the purpose of determining whether the cause of a disability or death is or is not attributable to service, it is immaterial whether the cause giving rise to the disability or death occurred in an area declared to be a field service/active service area or under normal peace conditions. It is, however, essential to establish whether the disability or death bore a causal connection with the service conditions. All evidence, both direct and circumstantial, will be taken into account and benefit of reasonable doubt, if any, will be given to the individual. The evidence to be accepted as reasonable doubt, for the purpose of these instructions, should be of a degree of cogency, which though not reaching certainty, nevertheless carry the high degree of probability. In this connection, it will be remembered that proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond a shadow of doubt. If the evidence is so strong against an individual as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour, which can be dismissed with the sentence of course it is possible but not in the least probable' the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt. If the evidence is so strong against an individual as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour, which can be dismissed with the sentence of course it is possible but not in the least probable' the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt. If on the other hand, the evidence be so evenly balanced as to render impracticable a determinate conclusion one way or the other, then the case would be one in which the benefit of doubt could be given more liberally to the individual, in cases occurring in field service/active service areas." (b) ...... (c) "The cause of a disability or death resulting from a disease will be regarded as attributable to service when it is established that the disease arose during service and the conditions and circumstances of duty in the armed forces determined and contributed to the onset of the disease. Cases, in which it is established that service conditions did not determine or contribute to the onset of the disease but influenced the subsequent course of the disease, will be regarded as aggravated by the service. 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 service in the armed forces. 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." 12. The entitlement rule for casualty pensionary awards 1982 was subsequently amended by Ministry of Defence vide letter dated 20th June 1996. 13. Rule 14(b) as amended in 1996 reads as under:- "Rule 14(b) If medical authority holds, for reasons to be stated, that the disease although present at the time of enrollment could not have been detected on medical examination prior to acceptance for service, the disease, will not be deemed to have arisen during service. In case where it is established that the military service did not contribute to the onset or adversely affect the course disease, entitlement for casualty pensionary award will not be conceded even if the disease has arisen during service." 14. The effect of rule 14(b) therefore has not been changed at all, even after the amendment of 1996. 15. In case where it is established that the military service did not contribute to the onset or adversely affect the course disease, entitlement for casualty pensionary award will not be conceded even if the disease has arisen during service." 14. The effect of rule 14(b) therefore has not been changed at all, even after the amendment of 1996. 15. From a reading of the aforementioned provisions, it will thus become clear that a disease which has led to an individual's discharge or death would ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in service if no note of it was made at the time of individual's acceptance of service in the armed force. However, the only way, this presumption could be rebutted is if the medical board opines for reasons to be stated that the disease could not have been detected on medical examination prior to acceptance of service. In the absence of this opinion, a presumption could be drawn in terms of Regulation 423(a & c) and the petitioner would get the benefit of disability pension. 16. A similar issue came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Dharamveer Singh v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2013 SC 2840 , after appreciating various rules and regulations, relevant for grant of disability pension, the Apex Court in paragraph 28 crystallized the legal position which is as under:- 28. A conjoint reading of various provisions, reproduced above, makes it clear that: (i) Disability pension to be granted to an individual who is invalidated from service on account of a disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military service in non-battle casualty and is assessed at 20% or over. The question whether a disability is attributable or aggravated by military service to be determined under "Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982" of Appendix-II (Regulation 173). (ii) A member is to be presumed in sound physical and mental condition upon entering service if there is no note or record at the time of entrance. In the event of his subsequently being discharged from service on medical grounds any deterioration in his health is to be presumed due to service. [Rule 5 r/w Rule 14(b)] (iii) Onus of proof is not on the claimant (employee), the corollary is that onus of proof that the condition for non-entitlement is with the employer. In the event of his subsequently being discharged from service on medical grounds any deterioration in his health is to be presumed due to service. [Rule 5 r/w Rule 14(b)] (iii) Onus of proof is not on the claimant (employee), the corollary is that onus of proof that the condition for non-entitlement is with the employer. A claimant has a right to derive benefit of any reasonable doubt and is entitled for pensionary benefit more liberally. (Rule 9). (iv) If a disease is accepted to have been as having arisen in service, it must also be established that the conditions of military service determined or contributed to the onset of the disease and that the conditions were due to the circumstances of duty in military service. [Rule 149(c)]. (v) If no note of any disability or disease was made at the time of individual's acceptance for military service, a disease which has led to an individual's discharge" or death will be deemed to have arisen in service. [14(b)]. (vi) If medical opinion holds that the disease could not have been detected on medical examination prior to the acceptance for service and that disease will not be deemed to have arisen during service, the Medical Board is required to state the reasons. [14(b)]; and (vii) It is mandatory for the Medical Board to follow the guidelines laid down in Chapter-II of the "Guide to Medical (Military Pension), 2002" - Entitlement: General Principles". 17. The aforementioned view was reiterated in Union of India and Anr v. Rajbir Singh, Civil Appeal No. 2904 of 2011, decided on February 13, 2015. The Apex Court in para 16 held as under: 16. Applying the above parameters to the cases at hand, we are of the view that each one of the respondents having been discharged from service on account of medical disease/disability, the disability must be presumed to have been arisen in the course of service which must, in the absence of any reason recorded by the Medical Board, be presumed to have been attributable to or aggravated by military service. There is admittedly neither any note in the service records of the respondents at the time of their entry into service nor have any reasons been recorded by the Medical Board to suggest that the disease which the member concerned was found to be suffering from could not have been detected at the time of his entry into service. The initial presumption that the respondents were all physically fit and free from any disease and in sound physical and mental condition at the time of their entry into service thus remains unrebutted. Since the disability has in each case been assessed at more than 20%, their claim to disability pension could not have been repudiated by the appellants." 18. When we apply the principles of law laid down in the aforementioned judgment to the facts of the present case, it will be seen that there is no note of the medical board that the disease could not have been detected on medical examination prior to the petitioner's acceptance for military service, neither is there anything on record which would suggest that the petitioner was under treatment for any such disease prior to joining service on account whereof he has been boarded out of service. In the absence of any such opinion of the medical board, it will be presumed that the disease which led to the petitioner's discharge was attributable to or aggravated on account of military service and, thus, is entitled to pensionary benefits. 19. For the reasons stated herein above, we do not find any ground to differ with a view taken by the learned Writ Court. The appeal is found to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed.