JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner was enrolled in Dogra regiment of the Indian Army on 14.11.1967. He was discharged from service on at his own request on 31.12.1989 in Low Medical category CEE (P) for disability "CATARACT (GPTD) Rt. EYE". He rendered service for 22 years and 48 days. The Release Medical Board recorded his disability as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, though percentage of his disability was assessed @ 40% for two years. He was granted service pension for his qualifying service. Claim for Disability Pension was rejected on the ground that the disability was not attributable to military service and that the disability did not fulfill the following namely "that it existed before or arose during military service and has been or remains aggravated thereby". This decision of PCDA (A), Allahabad rejecting claim of petitioner for disability pension was assailed in appeal by the petitioner. The first appeal was rejected. This happened in 1992 vide letter dated 11.4.2014. Petitioner raked up the issue with Records, the Dogra Regiment for grant of disability element which was declined. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act seeking a direction to the respondents for setting aside the impugned opinion of the Release Medical Board (Annexure A5 and Annexures A6 to A8 and All) wherein the disability claim of petitioner has been rejected by the respondents. Besides he seeks a direction to the respondents to declare the disability "CATARACT (OPTD) Rt. Eye of the petitioner as aggravated by military service and grant of disability element of disability pension from the date of discharge from service with rounding off benefit and interest. It is claimed that the petitioner was medically and physically examined by the Medical Officer at the time of recruitment and he was found fit and placed in Medical Categorisation SHAPE-I. Second Medical Examination of the petitioner was conducted when he reported to the Training Centre. Petitioner was not found suffering from any kind of disease and he was declared medically fit. He was discharged from army w.e.f. 31.12.1989 in low medical category CEE (P) for the disability "Cataract (Optd) Rt. Eye" with 40% disability. While service pension was granted in his favour, disability pension was denied on the ground that he had been discharged from service at his on request. He was discharged from army w.e.f. 31.12.1989 in low medical category CEE (P) for the disability "Cataract (Optd) Rt. Eye" with 40% disability. While service pension was granted in his favour, disability pension was denied on the ground that he had been discharged from service at his on request. It is claimed that vision of both eyes of petitioner was 6/6 and he was not suffering from any kind of eye disease at the time of enrolment. It is further claimed that the petitioner suffered the disability pre-senile Cataract both eyes which he contracted during service and he was downgraded to low medical category. He was operated upon and during re-categorisation he was placed in low medical category CEE (Per). The Release Medical Board opined that the disability of petitioner was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service (NANA) and considered it as a degenerated disease though, the disability of petitioner was not existing before his entry into service. There was no note in his medical documents to suggest that the petitioner was suffering from cataract eye at the time of enrolment. It is further claimed that the petitioner served for nine long years in the Field and High altitude and insurgency area of Nagaland, Dimapur besides serving three tenures in J & K which was full of stress & strain. This resulted in origination of disease of eyes. His claim that the respondents were not justified in rejecting the petitioner's claim for disability pension on the ground of his premature discharge at his own request. 2. Respondents have contested the claim of the petitioner on the ground that his disability was recorded as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service by the Release Medical Board and that the petitioner was discharged from service at his own request. It is further pleaded that the petitioner approached the Records of Dogra Regiment to consider his case for grant of disability element after remaining silent for 22 years. It is stated that there was no history of trauma or any other Oracular or systemic complaint by the petitioner when he was placed in temporary low medical category. It is further pleaded that the petitioner approached the Records of Dogra Regiment to consider his case for grant of disability element after remaining silent for 22 years. It is stated that there was no history of trauma or any other Oracular or systemic complaint by the petitioner when he was placed in temporary low medical category. It is admitted that the disease was first started in January, 1989 in Delhi after the petitioner had left J & K. Rejection of petitioner's claim by the respondents is defended on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to disability pension in terms of Regulation 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, entitlement Rule for causality pension award 1982 and Ministry of Defence letter dated 29.9.2009. 3. Petitioner filed replication wherein it is stated that the initial and Re-categorization Medical Board has downgraded the petitioner for the disability Pre-senile Cataract both eyes. In the opinion of Eye Specialist in RMB petitioner was diagnosed with Pre-senile Cataract both eyes (Optd) (Rt.) eye and Cataract (Optd) (Rt) eye has found mention in the opinion of Medical Board. It is stated that the pre-senile Cataract from which the petitioner was suffering was assigned the ICD Code as 366 which means the cataract related to infantile, juvenile and Pre-senile Cataract occurring before attaining the age of 50 years with its cause being unknown. Whereas the Cataract is a formation of Opacity of the Crystalline lens of the eyes caused by degenerative change in the lens often occurring after the age of 50 years. It is stated that the age of petitioner at the time of origin of the disability was only 39 years, therefore, opinion of Medical Board declaring the disability as degenerative disease was against etiology of Cataract/Pre-senile Cataract. The Medical Board's opinion, therefore, could not be taken as conclusive. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The issue involved is whether the claim of petitioner for grant of disability element of pension has been rejected arbitrarily, ignoring the fact that the petitioner had to serve at difficult locations at High altitude, mountainous terrain, hard and humid climate being exposed to adverse climatic conditions and was finally discharged after rendering service for 22 years and 48 days. Admittedly vision of both eyes of petitioner was 6/6 at the time of his recruitment. Admittedly vision of both eyes of petitioner was 6/6 at the time of his recruitment. He was not suffering from any kind of eye disease at the time of his enrolment. It is also indisputable that there is no note of any eye ailment having been detected at the time of enrolment of petitioner. Petitioner was found fit and placed in medical categorization SHAPE-I at the time of reporting to Training Centre. He was discharged from army w.e.f. 31.12.1989 in Low Medical category CEE (P) for the disability "CATARACT (OPTD) (RT.) EYE" with 40% disability. Service pension was granted in his favour but disability pension was denied on the ground that he had been discharged from service at his own request. Petitioner was downgraded to Low Medical category as he suffered disability Pre-senile Cataract both eyes which he contracted during service. According to Release Medical Board the disability of petitioner was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. The RMB considered the disability of petitioner as a degenerative disease, though such disability was not existing before his entry into service. According to petitioner the disease was originated due to stress & strain of service while he served in the Field and High-altitude areas and insurgency infested areas of Nagaland, Dimapur and J & K. 5. The Hon'ble Apex Court held in CDA(P) & Ors v. S. Balachandran Nayyar reported in AIR 2005 (SC) 4391 that Medical Board's opinion to the effect that illness and disability suffered by the respondent was not attributable to his military service, cannot be substituted by the court in order to arrive at a contrary finding. It further held that where a Medical Board found that there was absence of proof of injury/illness having been sustained due to military service or being attributable thereto, the High Court's direction to the government to pay disability pension was not correct. The Hon'ble Apex court negatived the contention that since the individual was posted at sensitive border area, therefore, his illness was found attributable to military service. The Hon'ble Apex court negatived the contention that since the individual was posted at sensitive border area, therefore, his illness was found attributable to military service. In Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India and others reported in 2013 AIR (SC) 2840 the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the scope of Regulation 173 of Pension regulations for the Army 1961, entitlement rules for Casualty Pensioners Awards 1982 and general rules of Guide to Medical Officers (Military pension) 2002 Rule 423, summed up the legal position as under : "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. 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)]. [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)]. 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 paragraph 7, 8 and 9 as referred to above." 6. In the instant case it is undisputed that at the time of petitioner's enrolment for military service no note of any disease has been recorded by the Medical authorities. Respondents have not been able to demonstrate that the petitioner was suffering from a pre-existing disease of the nature and type discovered during his service leading to his Low Medical categorization and no documentary evidence has been brought on record that the petitioner was suffering from any eye disease for which he was undergoing treatment or that such disease was hereditary in character. There is nothing on record to suggest that the Medical Board had called any record to look into it and no reasons have been recorded in writing to arrive at the finding that the disability was not due to military service. Be it seen that while the preliminary medical examination report of petitioner noticed vision of petition in both eyes as 6/6 with no note of a pre-existing disease or ailment, the Medical Board proceedings forming Annexure A-3 to the petition record Pre-senile Cataract both eyes 366 as the principal disability. Petitioner was placed in category CEE (Per). In the opinion of Medical Board at page 35 of the OA (Annexure A-5) it is specifically recorded that the disability did not exist before the petitioner entered into service. In regard to the cause of disability the Medical Board has opined that it is a de-generative disease. Annexure A-6 is the letter dated 23.5.1990 in terms whereof disability pension claim of petitioner has been rejected. In regard to the cause of disability the Medical Board has opined that it is a de-generative disease. Annexure A-6 is the letter dated 23.5.1990 in terms whereof disability pension claim of petitioner has been rejected. According to this letter the disability from which the petitioner was found suffering during service in the army was not attributable to military service or aggravated by military service. Annexure A-7 is the letter dated 19.2.1992 from Under Secretary to Government of India in terms whereof appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected. According to this letter petitioner was released from service on account of disability in the form of Pre-senile Cataract which was a constitutional disease. Petitioner's claim for disability pension has also been rejected on the ground that he has been discharged from service on compassionate grounds prior to January, 2006. 7. Regulation 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army 1961 (para 1) provides that disability pension consisting of service element and disability element is admissible to an Armed forces personnel who is invalided out of service on account of disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military service and Non-battle Casualty and is assessed @ 20% or above. Respondents appear to have processed the case of petitioner for disability element. However PCDA (P) Allahabad rejected the disability pension claim of the petitioner on the ground that the disability was not attributable to or aggravated by military service. Admittedly, service pension has been released in favour of petitioner. His appeal for grant of disability pension has been rejected. Respondents plea is that the petitioner has raked up the issue of disability element after remaining silent for 22 years when it dawned upon him that claim for disability element could not be rejected on the ground of petitioner having proceeded on premature retirement. Admittedly, the petitioner has been discharged from service for being placed in Low Medical category and his premature discharge does not stand in his way for claiming disability element, provided he satisfies other conditions. Claim for pension is a recurring right and plea of Limitation cannot be set up to defeat such right. In the instant case the opinion of Medical Board categorically states that petitioner was not suffering from any disease at the time of enrolment. Claim for pension is a recurring right and plea of Limitation cannot be set up to defeat such right. In the instant case the opinion of Medical Board categorically states that petitioner was not suffering from any disease at the time of enrolment. There is nothing on record to show that petitioner suffered from any eye problem either at the time of enrolment or for a period of 22 years thereafter. He was detected as suffering from de-generative disease Pre-senile Cataract (Rt) Eye two years prior to his being invalided out of service. In absence of proof of the disease being in existence at the time of enrolment and having regard for the fact that the petitioner served at High-altitude stations in Nagaland, Dimapur and J & K and the fact that the Medical Board had failed to specify any reasons in support of its opinion, pension Sanctioning Authority's order of rejection based on the report of Medical Board cannot be supported. In the face of law laid down in Dharamvir's case (supra) the presumption would be that the petitioner's disability bore a casual connection with the service conditions. We are of the considered opinion that there is no basis for holding that the disability in the instant case was a constitutional disease. Since the Medical Board failed to determine the cause of disease leading to disability assessed at 40%, it could not have recorded the opinion that the disease in the instant case was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. As diagnostic opinion in regard to cause of disability is abysmally wanting, opinion in regard to non-attributability or non-aggravation of disability by military service is of no value. We are of the considered opinion that in the given circumstances petitioner cannot be deprived of his right to claim disability pension. Petitioner would also be entitled to broad banding percentage of his disability from 40 to 50% in terms of Circular dated 31.1.2001. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, this petition is allowed. Impugned opinion of the Release Medical Board forming Annexure A-5 to this petition and Annexure A-6 to A-8 and A-1l by virtue whereof the disability claim of petitioner has been rejected by the respondents, are accordingly quashed. The Cataract (Optd) (Rt.) Eye of petitioner is declared as disability which has been suffered by the petitioner as aggravated by military service. Impugned opinion of the Release Medical Board forming Annexure A-5 to this petition and Annexure A-6 to A-8 and A-1l by virtue whereof the disability claim of petitioner has been rejected by the respondents, are accordingly quashed. The Cataract (Optd) (Rt.) Eye of petitioner is declared as disability which has been suffered by the petitioner as aggravated by military service. Petitioner is held entitled to disability element of disability pension from the date of his discharge from service with rounding off of disability from 40 to 50%. The arrears shall be worked out and corrigendum PPO issued within a period of three months from the date of receipt of order by respondents. The arrears shall be paid to the petitioner within three months from the date copy of this order is served upon the respondents. Petition is accordingly disposed of. File be consigned to record after it due completion.