JUDGMENT : Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J. 1. The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army on 30.12.1976 and after rendering 22 years of service, the petitioner was diagnosed to be suffering from WPW Syndrome Type-A in the year 1998. Besides this, he was also detected with a depression syndrome. According to the opinion of the medical board, the disease of depression was attributed to stress and strain of military service whereas, the opinion of the medical board in regard to WPW Syndrome Type-A was "could be genetic/family." As a consequence of the aforementioned medical disability, the petitioner was invalided out of service vide order dated 30.9.2000. However, the disability pension was denied to the petitioner on account of the fact that WPW Syndrome Type-A was constitutional in nature and neither attributed to nor aggravated by military service. 2. It is on account of the rejection of the case of the petitioner for grant of such a disability pension that the present petition has been fled inter alia seeking a mandamus with a direction to the respondents to award disability pension in this case. 3. Objections have been filed by the respondents wherein a stand has been taken that the petitioner is not entitled to receive any disability pension in terms of Rule 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army 1961 (Part-I) on the ground that the disability of the petitioner has been opined as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The Rule Position. 5. 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. 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. The question whether a disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service shall be determined under the rule in Appendix-II." 6. Appendix II of the aforesaid regulations prescribes the entitlement rules for Causality Pensionary Awards, 1982 promulgated by Ministry of Defence, relevant portion whereof reads as under:- "5. The question whether a disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service shall be determined under the rule in Appendix-II." 6. Appendix II of the aforesaid regulations 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 a wound, injury or disease which existed before or arose during military service. Rule 14(b) is also relevant to reproduce: "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." 7. A similar issue came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Dharamvir 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 similar issue came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Dharamvir 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 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 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. 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 14(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. [Rule 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. [Rule 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. [Rule 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", including paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 as referred to above." 8. The aforementioned view was reiterated in Union of India & Anr. v. Rajbir Singh, Civil Appeal No. 2904 of 2011 along with connected appeals, 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." 9. Rule 14(b) was amended in 1996 and 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. Rule 14(b) was amended in 1996 and 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." 10. The effect of rule 14(b) therefore has not been changed at all, even after the amendment of 1996. 11. 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 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, had arisen in service, thus entitling him to pensionary benefits. 12. For the reasons stated herein above, the petition is allowed and respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for disability pension within a period of one month from the date, a copy of this judgment is served on the respondents concerned. Disposed of accordingly.