JUDGMENT : N. PAUL VASANTHA KUMAR, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the appellants challenging the order of learned Single Judge made in SWP No. 1335/2003, dated 07.12.2006, allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent seeking quashing of order of rejection of disability pension dated 07.02.2002 and directing the appellants to sanction and release the disability pension in favour of the respondent who served in Indian Army. The case of the respondent before the Writ Court was that he was appointed as Rifleman in the Army on 12.05.1976 and was allotted No. 9081703. The performance of his duties was appreciated all along and he was posted at different places i.e., Tangdhar (Kashmir), Dalhousie, Nagaland, Srinagar, Arunachal, Sikkim etc. After serving for about 25 years, he was discharged from service on 31.08.2001 on medical grounds by order dated 31.08.2001. His prayer to sanction disability pension was rejected. He preferred an appeal which too was rejected. Hence writ petition was filed with the above said prayer. 2. The Writ Court after considering the recommendation of the Medical Board which has recommended boarding out of the respondent and holding him entitled to disability pension, allowed the writ petition with a direction to the appellants to consider the claim of the respondent and sanction disability pension as admissible under rules within a period of two months. 3. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the order of the writ Court by contending that despite specific stand taken by the appellants before the writ Court that the disease suffered by the respondent was constitutional disorder and neither attributable to nor aggravated by the military service, the disability pension has been ordered in favour of the respondent. 4. We have heard Mrs. Sindhu Sharma, learned ASGI and perused the case file. 5. The principal contention of the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India in this appeal is that learned Single Judge wrongly stated that the Medical Board recommended for disability pension. According to her the Medical Board is competent to state only with regard to the ability of the respondent to continue in service i.e. whether the respondent will be in a position to discharge his military duties or not in any other matter. 6. It is not in dispute that the respondent was enrolled as Rifleman on 12.05.1976 and served the Force till 31.08.2001. 6. It is not in dispute that the respondent was enrolled as Rifleman on 12.05.1976 and served the Force till 31.08.2001. He was discharged on medical grounds by placing him in Medical Category CEE (Permanent) with 20% disability on account of "LABYRINTHINE VERTIGO-388". It is also not in dispute that the disability claim of the respondent was referred to Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) Allahabad on 05.11.2011 and the said authority rejected the disability pension case of the respondent on 28.02.2002, stating that the disease/disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. 7. It is relevant to point out at this juncture that the respondent participated in the selection process and was appointed as Rifleman on 12.05.1976. He was allotted No. 9081703 and was deputed for training also. At the time of selection and during the training period and during his 24 years of service, no disability was noticed by the appellants or Medical Officers attached to the training camp and the regiments where the respondent served. The respondent was posted at different places and he also discharged his duties efficiently and without any adverse remarks or blemish and these facts are not in dispute. During the medical examination at the time of his enrollment, the Medical Board examined the respondent on all aspects and found him medically fit which means that the respondent was in sound health and only in the year 2001, the Medical Board found that the respondent was suffering from "LABYRINTHINE VERTIGO-388". According to the respondent, the said medical disability occurred due to stress and strain of military service while serving in hard stations. The respondent was discharged from military service on 31.08.2001 as per the Medical Board's opinion. His claim for medical disability pension was rejected on the ground that he had not sustained the medical disability due to military service. The relevant provisions for considering the claim of disability pension under the Pension Regulations of Army, is Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations of the Army 1961 which reads thus:- "173. Primary conditions for the grant of disability pension: 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 Army service and is assessed at 20 per cent or over. Primary conditions for the grant of disability pension: 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 Army service and is assessed at 20 per cent or over. The question whether a disability is attributable to or aggravated by Army service shall be determined under the rule in Appendix II." 8. Under Rule 14 (b) of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982, it is stated that if a disease which has led to an individual's discharge 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 Army service. The exception is in the event of medical opinion supported by the reasons that the disease would have been detected on medical examination prior to acceptance for service, whereupon it would be deemed that the disease has not arisen during service. 9. Even though in the medical report, based on which the respondent was boarded out, it is not stated that the disability of the respondent was neither attributable to nor aggravated by the military service but it is not stated that the said disease could not be found by the Medical Board at the time of initial recruitment of the respondent. In the absence of such endorsement by the Medical Board, respondent is justified in contending that he is entitled to get disability pension. 10. Similar issue was considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the decisions reported in (2013) 7 SCC 316 (Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India & Ors.) and AIR 2015 SC 2114 (Union of India & Ors. v. Manjeet Singh). In the decision reported in (2013) 7 SCC 316 , while interpreting Regulation 173 as well as Rule 14 and Rule 423, Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that the benefit of reasonable doubt regarding disability, if there is no concrete proof would go to individual and a disease which had led to the individual be treated to have been arisen in service, if no note of it is mentioned at the time of entry into Army. If the disease could not have been detected on medical examination prior to acceptance of service and the disease will not be deemed to have been arisen during military service and the Board is required to state the reasons for the same. In this case, even though some reason is recorded by the Medical Board based on which the respondent was discharged, no specific reason as to why the doctor/Medical Board which examined the respondent at the time of his enrollment has not been stated. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the said decision rejected the plea of the Army in similar circumstance and directed to pay disability pension. In fact in the said case, learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, which was reversed by the Division Bench by setting aside the order and the Hon'ble Supreme Court restored the order of the writ Court with a direction to pay the disability pension within three months. 11. In the decision reported in 2015 (2) Scale 371 Union of India & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh), Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that the very fact that a person was found fit, who served in the Army shall raise 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. In the said case also, Hon'ble the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the Union of India and affirmed the order of the High Court giving directions to pay disability pension. 12. In the decision reported in AIR 2015 SC 2114 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court following the earlier decisions dismissed the appeal preferred by the Army and upheld the directions to pay disability pension, which was ordered by the High Court in similar circumstance where a person recruited on 06.04.1999 being awarded medical category of "AYE", was discharged on 01.01.2002 based on Medical Board's report in putting the respondent in the category from 'AYE' to 'CEE' temporarily w.e.f. April, 2000. Same view has been taken by this Court in the decision reported in 2016 (1) JKJ 34 [HC] (Brij Lal v. Union of India). 13. Insofar as the contention that the Medical Board could not have recommended to sanction disability pension is concerned, the same is not justified as it is beyond its powers. Same view has been taken by this Court in the decision reported in 2016 (1) JKJ 34 [HC] (Brij Lal v. Union of India). 13. Insofar as the contention that the Medical Board could not have recommended to sanction disability pension is concerned, the same is not justified as it is beyond its powers. However, it may be treated as an indicator that the Medical Board is of the opinion that the disease was not constitutional and attributable to the Military service. In the light of the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court and appellants having not disproved the presumption which is applicable to the respondent's claim and the disability pension being a benevolent welfare legislation which should be interpreted liberally, in the given circumstances, we are unable to find any reason to upset the order of writ Court. Hence the appeal is dismissed with a direction to the appellants to sanction the disability pension to the respondent from the date he was boarded out within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.