JUDGMENT : B.S. Walia, J. 1. Prayer in the instant writ petition is for quashing of order dated 09.05.2001 vide which the petitioner's claim for grant of disability pension was rejected by respondent No. 3. Prayer is also for issuance of directions to the respondents to grant disability pension on account of petitioner's disability having been assessed at 100% as also for issuance of directions to the respondents to conduct Resurvey Medical Board of the petitioner in order to assess his current disability. Brief facts of the case necessary for adjudication of the controversy involved in the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Recruit/AT Driver in the Indian Army on 29.12.1992. After serving for 8 years and 5 months, the petitioner was discharged from service on medical grounds on account of suffering from illness "Other Non Organic Psychos" with effect from 31.07.2000. At that time, the petitioner was serving in No. 1 Training Battalion (AT Driver) A.S.C. Centre North Paharpur Gaya-5. A copy of the discharge certificate is attached with the writ petition as Annexure-A. 2. The case as set up by the petitioner is that in the year 1992, he was sent to Training Regiment Centre Army Supply (A.S.C.) Centre (North) Paharpur Gaya-5 where he successfully completed one year of training with outstanding performance and that he was not suffering from any kind of illness or disease. Elaborating further, it has been mentioned that in the year 1993, the petitioner was posted and transferred to 870 A.S.C. Company A.M.A. upto 1996 where after he was posted to 528 A.S.C. Battalion Motor Transport (M.T.) and remained posted in the said Battalion upto 1999. While the petitioner was posted in 528 Army Supply Corps Battalion Motor Transport (M.T.), the petitioner was assigned/deployed for Anti-Militancy duties which included the duties assigned to him along with Major G.S. Faria i.e. his Company Commander. The duties involved search for militants 24 hours a day without proper food and rest including 'Encounters' as a result of which, the petitioner suffered from lack of sleep, headache, loss in weight beside his appetite decreased, resultantly he suffered from mental illness which was identified as 'Other Non Organic Psychos'. 3. The claim of the petitioner is that he suffered from the aforesaid disease due to stress and strain of Military duties. 3. The claim of the petitioner is that he suffered from the aforesaid disease due to stress and strain of Military duties. In the year 2000, the petitioner was transferred to Army Supply Corps, Training Battalion (AT) A.S.C. Centre (North) Paharpur Gaya-5 where he was granted 10 days' casual leave. After availing leave, the petitioner reported back for duty while suffering from fever and was also suffering Mental illness and was taken to 170 Military Hospital Akhnoor and on reporting, A.F.M.S. 10 form was prepared and the petitioner was transferred to Northern Command Hospital Udhampur for 3 to 4 months and given Psychiatric Disease Treatment where after he was sent to his parent Unit i.e. A.S.C. Centre Paharpur Gaya-5. The petitioner was transferred to Military Hospital Danapur and was given Electric shocks for a period of 8 months. He was examined by the Medical Board as well as Psychiatric Specialist and his illness was identified as a case of Other Non 'Organic Psychos' and disability was assessed 100% by the Release Medical Board. 4. Learned counsel for the official respondents states that the disability assessed by Release Medical Board was not 100% but 20%. The petitioner was placed in Medical Category "EEE" and declared unfit for further Military service with effect from 31.07.2000 whereafter he was sent home along with Escort and handed over to his next of kin. 5. The petitioner requested the respondents for grant of disability pension vide representation dated 28.08.2001 i.e. Annexure-B to the writ petition. In response thereto, the petitioner received communication dated 09.05.2001 from respondent No. 3 by virtue of which his claim for disability pension was rejected by the C.C.D.A. (P) Allahabad on the grounds: (a) Neither attributable to/nor aggravated by Military service and (b) Constitutional in nature and not related to service. A copy of the said communication is attached along with the writ petition as Annexure-C. 6. The petitioner made appeal to the respondents on 09.10.2001 against the decision of C.C.D.A. (P) Allahabad but despite lapse of sufficient time, no response was received by the petitioner leading to the filing of the writ petition. 7. Petitioner has sought quashing of order (Annexure-C) dated 09.05.2001 on the grounds that he was entitled to get disability pension under Army Pension Regulation 1961 Part-I Regulation 173, 173-A Appendix-II. 8. 7. Petitioner has sought quashing of order (Annexure-C) dated 09.05.2001 on the grounds that he was entitled to get disability pension under Army Pension Regulation 1961 Part-I Regulation 173, 173-A Appendix-II. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was mentally fit at the time of entry into service and no shortcoming in the medical condition of the petitioner was discovered at the time of recruitment and it was only due to stress and strain of Army duties that the petitioner developed mental illness. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the opinion of the Medical Board merely mentions cause of disability as constitutional personality disorder and nowhere mentions that the same could not have been detected at the time of entry into service. Learned counsel further refers to the certificate given by the Medical Board recommending acceptance of commutation of pension for the petitioner. Extract of the opinion of the Medical Board as referred to above is reproduced hereunder:- (d) In the case of a disability under 'C' the Board should state what exactly in their opinion is the cause thereof: Constitutional personality disorder. CERTIFICATE FOR COMMUTATION OF PENSION (To be included as para 7 an Part II OF AFMSP-16) (Details whichever is not applicable) The medical board have carefully examined and of the medical treatment:- No. 6484711-FF Rank Sep Name Yash Paul of 1 Trg Bn. AT ASC (N) Gaya. The individual is suffering from other Non Organize Psychosis (298) but is otherwise is good bodily healthy and has the prospect of an average during of life. Commutation of pension is his/her case is therefore recommended for acceptance. 10. On the basis of the same, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order rejecting the claim for pension is absolutely without authority of law. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Paragraph Nos. 13 to 16 of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Union of India v. Rajbir Singh in Civil Appeal No. 2904/2011 and other connected cases decided on 13.02.2015 in support of the claim of the petitioner. Relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:- "13. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Paragraph Nos. 13 to 16 of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Union of India v. Rajbir Singh in Civil Appeal No. 2904/2011 and other connected cases decided on 13.02.2015 in support of the claim of the petitioner. Relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:- "13. In Dharamvir Singh's case (supra) this Court took note of the provisions of the Pensions Regulations, Entitlement Rules and the General Rules of Guidance to Medical Officers to sum up the legal position emerging from the same in the following words: "29.1. Disability pension to be granted to an individual who is invalided 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 to or aggravated by military service to be determined under the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 of Appendix II (Regulation 173). 29.2. 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 read with Rule 14(b)]. 29.3. The 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). 29.4. 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 14(c)]. 29.5. 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 [Rule 14(b)]. 29.6. 29.5. 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 [Rule 14(b)]. 29.6. 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 [Rule 14(b)]; and 29.7. It is mandatory for the Medical Board to follow the guidelines laid down in Chapter II of the Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pensions), 2002 -- "Entitlement: General Principles", including Paras 7, 8 and 9 as referred to above (para 27)." 14. Applying the above principles this Court in Dharamvir Singh's case (supra) found that no note of any disease had been recorded at the time of his acceptance into military service. This Court also held that Union of India had failed to bring on record any document to suggest that Dharamvir was under treatment for the disease at the time of his recruitment or that the disease was hereditary in nature. This Court, on that basis, declared Dharamvir to be entitled to claim disability pension in the absence of any note in his service record at the time of his acceptance into military service. This Court observed: "33. In spite of the aforesaid provisions, the Pension Sanctioning Authority failed to notice that the Medical Board had not given any reason in support of its opinion, particularly when there is no note of such disease or disability available in the service record of the appellant at the time of acceptance for military service. Without going through the aforesaid facts the Pension Sanctioning Authority mechanically passed the impugned order of rejection based on the report of the Medical Board. As per Rules 5 and 9 of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982, the appellant is entitled for presumption and benefit of presumption in his favour. Without going through the aforesaid facts the Pension Sanctioning Authority mechanically passed the impugned order of rejection based on the report of the Medical Board. As per Rules 5 and 9 of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982, the appellant is entitled for presumption and benefit of presumption in his favour. In the absence of any evidence on record to show that the appellant was suffering from "generalised seizure (epilepsy)" at the time of acceptance of his service, it will be presumed that the appellant was in sound physical and mental condition at the time of entering the service and deterioration in his health has taken place due to service." 15. The legal position as stated in Dharamvir Singh's case (supra) is, in our opinion, in tune with the Pension Regulations, the Entitlement Rules and the Guidelines issued to the Medical Officers. The essence of the rules, as seen earlier, is that a member of the armed forces is presumed to be in sound physical and mental condition at the time of his entry into service if there is no note or record to the contrary made at the time of such entry. More importantly, in the event of his subsequent discharge from service on medical ground, any deterioration in his health is presumed to be due to military service. This necessarily implies that no sooner a member of the force is discharged on medical ground his entitlement to claim disability pension will arise unless of course the employer is in a position to rebut the presumption that the disability which he suffered was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. From Rule 14(b) of the Entitlement Rules it is further clear that if the medical opinion were to hold that the disease suffered by the member of the armed forces could not have been detected prior to acceptance for service, the Medical Board must state the reasons for saying so. Last but not the least is the fact that the provision for payment of disability pension is a beneficial provision which ought to be interpreted liberally so as to benefit those who have been sent home with a disability at times even before they completed their tenure in the armed forces. Last but not the least is the fact that the provision for payment of disability pension is a beneficial provision which ought to be interpreted liberally so as to benefit those who have been sent home with a disability at times even before they completed their tenure in the armed forces. There may indeed be cases, where the disease was wholly unrelated to military service, but, in order that denial of disability pension can be justified on that ground, it must be affirmatively proved that the disease had nothing to do with such service. The burden to establish such a disconnect would lie heavily upon the employer for otherwise the rules raise a presumption that the deterioration in the health of the member of the service is on account of military service or aggravated by it. A soldier cannot be asked to prove that the disease was contracted by him on account of military service or was aggravated by the same. The very fact that he was upon proper physical and other tests found fit to serve in the army should rise as indeed the rules do provide for a presumption that he was disease-free at the time of his entry into service. That presumption continues till it is proved by the employer that the disease was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. For the employer to say so, the least that is required is a statement of reasons supporting that view. That we feel is the true essence of the rules which ought to be kept in view all the time while dealing with cases of disability pension. 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. 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 un-rebutted. 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." 12. A perusal thereof reveals that disability pension is to be granted to an individual who is invalided from service on account of a disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military service in non-battle casualty assessed at 20% or over. The question whether the disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service is to be determined under the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 of Appendix II (Regulation 173). The legal position further is that a member is presumed to be in sound physical and mental condition upon entering service if there is no note or record at the time of entry and in the event of subsequently being discharged from service on medical grounds any deterioration in the health of the armed forces personnel is to be presumed due to service [Rule 5 read with Rule 14(b)]. The onus of proof to prove non-entitlement is on the employer and further that a claimant has a right to derive benefit of any reasonable doubt and is entitled for pensionary benefit more liberally (Rule 9). If a disease is accepted as having arisen in service, it also must be established that the conditions of military service determined or contributed to the onset of the disease and that the conditions was due to the circumstances of duty in military service. If no note of any disability or disease was made at the time of individual's acceptance for military service, a disease which had led to an individual's discharge or death would be deemed to have arisen in service. If no note of any disability or disease was made at the time of individual's acceptance for military service, a disease which had led to an individual's discharge or death would be deemed to have arisen in service. Likewise, if medical opinion holds 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 but the Medical Board would be required to state the reasons. 13. In Dharamvir Singh's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe that the Union of India had failed to bring on record any document to suggest that Dharamvir was under treatment for the disease at the time of his recruitment or that the disease was hereditary in nature. On the said basis, the Hon'ble Supreme Court declared Dharamvir entitled to claim disability pension in the absence of any note in his service record at the time of his acceptance into military service. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was further pleased to observe that a member of the armed forces was presumed to be in sound physical and mental condition at the time of his entry into service if there was no note or record to the contrary made at the time of such entry and more importantly, in the event of his subsequent discharge from service on medical ground, any deterioration in his health was to be presumed to be due to military service. 14. 14. Last but not the least, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was further pleased to hold that the provision of payment of disability pension was a beneficial provision so as to benefit those who had been sent home with a disability at times even before they completed their tenure in the armed forces The Hon'ble Supreme Court was also pleased to hold that there may indeed be cases, where the disease was wholly unrelated to military service, but in order that denial of disability pension could be justified on that ground it must be affirmatively proved that the disease had nothing to do with such service and further that the burden to establish such a disconnect would lie heavily upon the employer for otherwise the rules raise a presumption that the deterioration in the health of the member of the service is on account of military service or aggravated by it and that a soldier could not be asked to prove that the disease was contracted by him on account of military service or was aggravated by the same. 15. Although the opinion of the Medical Board records that the disability did not exist prior to entry of the petitioner into service yet in response to whether it was attributable to service or it had been aggravated thereby and remained so, whether it was not connected with service, the answer to the questions was no, no and yes respectively. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that identical was the situation in the case titled as Union of India & Ors. v. Manjeet Singh reported as AIR 2015 SC 2114 . Learned counsel relies upon Paragraph Nos. 21 & 22 of the aforementioned judgment which are reproduced hereunder:- "21. Though as per Clause 2(a) of Part III, the Medical Board was required to express its views on the aspects as to whether the disabilities; (1) were attributable to service during peace or under field service conditions; (2) were aggravated thereby and remained to be so; (3) were not connected with service; and was required to state reasons with regard to each of the disabilities of which its opinion was based, it merely recorded in the negative vis-a-vis the first two and in the affirmative qua the third and abruptly concluded that both the disabilities were constitutional in nature and hence unconnected with Army service. No reason whatsoever was cited by the Medical Board in support of this conclusion. On the contrary, its deduction that the disabilities were unrelated to the Army service was founded only on the fact that those were constitutional in nature and no other consideration or reason whatsoever. That the opinion of the Medical Board lacks in reasons, has been conceded too by the learned counsel for the appellants. 22. Be that as it may, adverting inter alia to Rule 14(b) of the Rules, we are of the unhesitant opinion that reasons, that the diseases could not be detected on medical examination prior to acceptance in service, ought to have been obligatorily recorded by the Medical Board sans whereof, the respondent would be entitled to the benefit of the statutory inference that the same had been contracted during service or have been aggravated thereby. There is no reason forthcoming in the proceedings of the Medical Board, as to why his disabilities eventually adjudged to be constitutional or genetic in nature had escaped the notice of the authorities concerned at the time of his acceptance for Army service. On a comprehensive consideration of the Regulation, Rules and the General Principles as applicable, the service profile of the respondent and the proceedings of the Medical Board, we are constrained to hold that he had been wrongly denied the benefit of disability pension. His tenure albeit short, during which he had to be frequently hospitalized does not irrefutably rule out the possibility, in absence of any reason recorded by the Medical Board that the disability even assumed to be constitutional or genetic, had not been induced or aggravated by the arduous military conditions. The requirement of recording reasons is not contingent on the duration of the Army service of the member thereof and is instead of peremptory nature, failing which the decision to board him out would be vitiated by an inexcusable infraction of the relevant statutory provisions. The requirement of recording reasons is not contingent on the duration of the Army service of the member thereof and is instead of peremptory nature, failing which the decision to board him out would be vitiated by an inexcusable infraction of the relevant statutory provisions. Having regard to the letter and spirit of the Regulation, Rules and the General Principles, the prevailing presumption in favour of a member of the Army service boarded out on account of disability and the onus cast on the authorities to displace the same, we are of the unhesitant opinion that the denial of disability pension to the respondent in the facts and circumstances of the case, have been repugnant to the relevant statutory provisions and thus cannot be sustained in law. The determination made by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu is thus upheld on its own merit." 17. In the aforementioned decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe that there was no reason forthcoming in the proceedings of the Medical Board, as to why the disability of the soldier eventually adjudged to be constitutional or genetic in nature had escaped the notice of the authorities concerned at the time of his acceptance for Army service. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was further pleased to observe that in absence of any reason recorded by the Medical Board that the disability even assumed to be constitutional or genetic, had not been induced or aggravated by the arduous military conditions and the requirement of recording reasons was of pre-emptory nature failing which the decision to board out the army personnel would be vitiated by an inexcusable infraction of the relevant statutory provision. The Hon'ble Supreme Court having regard to the letter and spirit of the Regulation, Rules and the General Principles as well as the prevailing presumption in favour of a member of the Army service boarded out on account of disability besides the onus cast on the authorities to displace the same held that the denial of disability pension to the respondent in the said case i.e. Manjeet Singh, was repugnant to the relevant statutory provisions and thus could not be sustained in law. In light of the aforementioned decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the instant case is squarely covered by the aforementioned two judgments and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be allowed. 18. Admittedly the petitioner was found to be suffering from constitutional personality disorder "Other Non Organic Psychos" and that this disability did not exist before entry into service. The Medical Board has further given a certificate recommending acceptance of commutation of pension. No reasons whatsoever have been cited by the Medical Board in support of the conclusion as to whether the disability was (i) attributable to service during peace or under field service conditions; (ii) were aggravated thereby and remained to be so; (iii) were not connected with service. 19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering identical situation in Manjeet Singh's case (Supra) was pleased to observe that deduction of the Medical Board that disabilities were unrelated to the Army service was founded only on the fact that those were constitutional in nature and no other consideration whatsoever. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was further pleased to hold that the opinion of the Medical Board lacked reasons and that the same was conceded so by learned counsel for the appellants in that case. 20. Same is the position in the instant case but learned ASGI without elaborating disputes the position that the opinion of the Medical Board lacks in reasons. However, in view of the fact that in identical circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held the opinion of the Medical Board to be lacking in reasons, the submission of learned ASGI is noticed to be rejected. 21. Further in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manjeet Singh's case (Supra), in view of Rule 14(b) reasons at to why the diseases could not be detected on medical examination prior to acceptance in service, ought to have been obligatorily recorded by the Medical Board sans whereof, the army personnel would be entitled to the benefit of the statutory inference that the same had been contracted during service or had been aggravated thereby. As in Manjeet Singh's case, likewise in the instant case, there is no reason forthcoming in the proceedings of the Medical Board, as to why the petitioner's disability adjudged to be constitutional or genetic in nature had escaped the notice of the authorities concerned at the time of acceptance of the petitioner for Army service. 22. In the circumstances, the plea of the petitioner that he has wrongly been denied grant of disability pension is liable to be accepted. 23. In the light of all that has been discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition filed by the petitioner merits acceptance and is, accordingly, accepted. Impugned order (Annexure-C) dated 09.05.2001 is hereby quashed. 24. Respondents are directed to consider in accordance with the Rules the claim or the petitioner for release of disability pension and to pass appropriate orders in respect thereto within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Needless to mention that since the petitioner has been deprived of the benefits of disability pension, to which he was rightfully entitled in accordance with law, the payment made to the petitioner in respect thereto would carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum with effect from the date of entitlement till date of payment. Writ petition is disposed of in the aforementioned terms.