ORDER : Ravi Cheemalapati, J. Challenge laid in this Writ Petition is to the orders dated 08.09.2023 passed in O.A.No.197 of 2019 by the Armed Forces, Tribunal, Regional Bench at Chennai, Circuit Bench at Hyderabad, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for quashing the Order No.15328465/Pen(D) dated 04.12.2018 passed by respondent no.3 in rejecting disability pension claim was disposed of being bereft of merit. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that, he was enrolled in Indian Army (MEG) on 26.06.2002, having been found fully fit with no prior and prerequisite disease and after rendering qualifying service of 04 months 22 days, he was declared unfit to serve and was invalided out from service on 18.11.2002 on the ground that the Invaliding Medical Board found that he was suffering from an Invaliding Disease (ID) viz., ‘Acute Schizophrenia – Like Psychotic Disorder’ assessed @ 30% for life, which is neither attributable to nor aggravated by Military Service. It is his further case that as copy of the proceedings of Invaliding Medical Board was not tendered on him, he could not prefer appeal to Re-Survey Medical Board and thus his legitimate right to prefer appeal was denied and since he was diagnosed with the Invaliding Disease whilst in service, which is aggravated due to stress and strain including physical complications of Military Service and its strenuous training, he is entitled for disability pension, however, the Chief CDA (P), Allahabad rejected disability pension on the ground that the Invaliding Disease is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service and first & second appeals preferred against the same were also rejected so also his representation made to respondent no.3 subsequent to rejection of second appeal. Aggrieved by rejection of second appeal, the petitioner filed O.A.No.197 of 2019 and the Armed Forces Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Hyderabad, contrary to the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India & Ors., (2013) 7 SCC 316 and Union of India and another v. Rajbir Singh, (2015) 12 SCC 264 , disposed of the said O.A.being devoid of merit. It is his further case that the Armed Forces Tribunal erred in not considering the fact that the petitioner was admitted into service having been found that he was physically and mentally fit to join in military service and therefore, the illness diagnosed whilst in service must be attributable to and aggravated by the Military Service and since Invaliding Disease was assessed more than 20%, he is entitled to get disability pension as per Army Rules, 1954 and therefore, since the respondents failed to show that the petitioner was suffering from the disability at the time of enrolment, the Armed Forces Tribunal, ought to have extended benefit of doubt in his favour and grant disability pension, which is a beneficial provision. 3. Heard Sri R.Arun Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner. 4. Sri R.Arun Kumar, learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit and by placing reliance of the decisions rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to supra, would contend that acceptance of the petitioner to serve in Army in Shape-1 (fully found fit) is suggestive of the fact that the petitioner was fit both physically and mentally prior to and at the time of joining into service and therefore, the Invaliding Disease found whilst in service is presumably either attributable to or aggravated by military service. The learned counsel would further contend that the Armed Forces Tribunal erred in shifting the onus of proof on to the petitioner in contravention of Army Rules and oblivious of the fact that payment of disability pension is a beneficial provision which ought to be interpreted liberally so as to benefit those who suffer disability during the tenure. The learned counsel would further contend that as the petitioner was not served with copy of the proceedings of the Invaliding Medical Board, he could not prefer appeal and thereby his legitimate right to prefer appeal was denied. The learned counsel would further contend that the Armed Force Tribunal erred in applying the law set out in Ex.Cfn Narsingh Yadav vs. Union of India & Ors. unmindful of the fact that ratio laid down therein does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. The learned counsel would further contend that the Armed Force Tribunal erred in applying the law set out in Ex.Cfn Narsingh Yadav vs. Union of India & Ors. unmindful of the fact that ratio laid down therein does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. The learned counsel would further submit that since the petitioner was invalided out from Military service due to disability of over 20%, which is attributable to or aggravated by Military service in non-battle casualty, he is entitled for disability pension and therefore, the order impugned being faulty and erroneous is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition. 5. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner was admitted into Army and after rendering qualifying service of 04 months and 22 days he was declared unfit to serve further and was invalided out from service due to Invaliding Disease (ID), ‘Acute Schizophrenia – Like Psychotic Disorder’ and the Medical Board Invaliding him assessed the Disease at 30% for life and opined that the disability is neither attributable to nor aggravated by the Military Service. His claim for disability pension was rejected by PCDA, Allahabad and the appeals (first & second) preferred thereon were also rejected. The order rejecting the second appeal was assailed by filing O.A.No.197 of 2019 and the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chennai, Circuit Bench at Hyderabad disposed of the said application filed seeking Disability Element along with Rounding Off benefit as bereft of merit. 7. Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 provides for grant of disability pension to persons who are invalided out of 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 above. As per this Regulation twin conditions viz., 1. the disability is above 20% and (2) the disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service, are to be satisfied for getting disability pension by a person invalided out from service. The Medical Board assessed the disability/Invaliding Disease at 30% for life. None disputed the percentage of disability being 30% for life. Whether the Invaliding Disease is attributable to or aggravated by military service is the contentious issue in this writ petition. 8. The Medical Board assessed the disability/Invaliding Disease at 30% for life. None disputed the percentage of disability being 30% for life. Whether the Invaliding Disease is attributable to or aggravated by military service is the contentious issue in this writ petition. 8. In Dharamvir Singh case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after taking note of the provisions of the Pension Regulations, Entitlement Rules and the General Rules of Guidance to Medical Officers, has summed up the legal position emerging from the same as follows: “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. 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. 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).” 9. In Rajbir Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court after referring to the observations and findings given in Dharamvir Singh case, held 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 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. 10. In Ex Cfn Narsingh Yadav vs. Union of India & others, (2019) 9 SCC 667 , relied on by the Armed Forces Tribunal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue regarding denial of disability pension to a soldier invalided out from service with schizophrenia, held as follows: “20. In the present case, Rule 14( d), as amended in the year 1996 and reproduced above, would be applicable as entitlement to disability pension shall not be considered unless it is clearly established that the cause of such disease was adversely affected due to factors related to conditions of military service. Though, the provision of grant of disability pension is a beneficial provision but, mental disorder at the time of recruitment cannot normally be detected when a person behaves normally. Since there is a possibility of non-detection of mental disorder, therefore, it cannot be said that schizophrenia is presumed to be attributed to or aggravated by military service. 21. Though, the provision of grant of disability pension is a beneficial provision but, mental disorder at the time of recruitment cannot normally be detected when a person behaves normally. Since there is a possibility of non-detection of mental disorder, therefore, it cannot be said that schizophrenia is presumed to be attributed to or aggravated by military service. 21. Though, the opinion of the Medical Board is subject to judicial review but the courts are not possessed of expertise to dispute such report unless there is strong medical evidence on record to dispute the opinion of the Medical Board which may warrant the constitution of the Review Medical Board. The invaliding Medical Board has categorically held that the appellant is not fit for further service and there is no material on record to doubt the correctness of the report of the invaliding Medical Board.” 11. In the decision referred to above (supra 3), the Hon’ble Court has considered the observations made in the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner (supra 1 and 2) and at para-16 of the order, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus: “16. Annexure I to Chapter IV of the Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pensions), 2002 — “Entitlement : General Principles” points out that certain diseases which may be undetectable by physical examination on enrolment including the mental disorders; epilepsy and relapsing forms of mental disorders which have intervals of normality, unless adequate history is given at the time by the member. The Entitlement Rules itself provide that certain diseases ordinarily escape detection including epilepsy and mental disorder, therefore, we are unable to agree that mere fact that schizophrenia, a mental disorder was not noticed at the time of enrolment will lead to presumption that the disease was aggravated or attributable to military service.” 12. In the instant case, the petitioner was admitted into service as he was fully found fit and admittedly no note of any disability or disease was made at the time of his acceptance for military service. The petitioner had rendered qualifying service for a period of 4 months 22 days only before he was declared unfit to serve. As per Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pensions), 2002; relapsing forms of mental disorders which have intervals of normality may go undetected, unless adequate history is given at the time of joining by the member. The petitioner had rendered qualifying service for a period of 4 months 22 days only before he was declared unfit to serve. As per Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pensions), 2002; relapsing forms of mental disorders which have intervals of normality may go undetected, unless adequate history is given at the time of joining by the member. Therefore, mere factum of not noticing invaliding disease at the time of enrolment will not lead to presumption that the disease was aggravated or attributable to military service, more particularly keeping in view the short span of service rendered by the petitioner before being declared unfit. 13. Rule 9 of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 coupled with the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred decisions make it clear that onus of proof regarding disentitlement to get disability pension by invalided out employee lies with the employer. By getting the petitioner examined by Invaliding Medical Board, the employer could discharge the onus initially lies on it and thus the burden shifts on to the petitioner to disprove the observations made in the proceedings issued by Invaliding Medical Board by constitution of a Re-Survey Medical Board by preferring an appeal or by placing strong evidence on record to rebut the conclusions reached by Invaliding Medical Board. The petitioner did not prefer any appeal stating that since he was not served with copy of the proceedings he could not prefer. The explanation offered by him for his failure to prefer an appeal is not satisfactory. Further, the petitioner did not place any strong evidence on record to doubt the veracity of the proceedings of Invaliding Medical Board. 14. The Armed Forces Tribunal had scanned the material available on record in proper perspective and had come to a right conclusion in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking Disability Element along with Rounding Off benefit finding it to be bereft of merit. The same deserves no interference of this Court and this writ petition deserves dismissal. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.