Establishing a casual connection between disability and Military Service is essential for claiming disability pension, and the presumption that a disease leading to discharge arose during service if not noted at the time of entry into service.

( 1 ) "law is the king of kings, mightier than sword. For with its help even the weak may triumph over the strong". (Kathopanishad) with that fond hope and faith in this institution and realising the present is darker, but it is darkness before dawn the inevitable sunrise. Petitioner, an ex-Army man, trained as a paratrooper in 17, Para Field Regiment, Artillery, thrown into silence sufferance and unheard condemnation is knocking at the doors of this Court, because he feels that he has grievance and this Court would grant him the necessary relief.

( 2 ) PETITIONER has commenced the judicial proceedings with the filing of petition dated 28-3-1994. It is his case before this Court that he is eligible and entitled for payment of disability pension as provided under the Pension Rules. This claim is rejected by the opposite party on the ground that the petitioner has not been invalidated from service on account of disability which is attributable to or aggravated by Military Service. The above reasoning is reiterated by respondents even before this Court by filing their "uttara Paksha".

( 3 ) ON the conclusion of the trial and after careful consideration of the rival contentions urged by learned Counsels for the parties to the Us, in my opinion, petitioner is the winner and is entitled to a Maya Patra' for the following reasons.

( 4 ) PETITIONER had sought and had obtained enrollment into the Regiment Artillery in the trade of 'radio Operator' in the Indian army. Petitioner was then selected to be trained as a 'para trooper' and joined the 17 Para Field Regiment, Artillery, a unit of Artillery Para Troopers. In recognition of his competence and performance, petitioner was appointed as Lance Naik and thereafter promoted to the non-commissioned Officer's rank of naik. As a Paratrooper and Radio Operator, petitioner had taken part in the Indian Army Operations in Srilanka and maldives island. Sometime in the month of June, 1990, petitioner suffered some disorientation accompanied by a total black out of his mind. Consequently, he was admitted to Military hospital at Agra and then was transferred to the Command military Hospital at Lucknow for pshychiatric attention on 2-6-1990 and he was under treatment till 22-10-1990. In the interregnum an invalidment Medical Board was held at Military hospital, Lucknow. The invalidment Board proceedings had been approved by Deputy Director of Medical Services at lucknow by its letter dated 10-10-1990 for invalidment of the petitioner placing him in the Medical Category 'eee'. Accordingly, petitioner was discharged from service on 23-10-1990.

( 5 ) CLAIM for grant of disability pension was made by Officer-in-charge, Artillery records on the ground that the petitioner's disability is attributable to or aggravated by Military service. This claim was rejected by the Competent Authority by its order dated 7-10-1991 and the same was communicated by officer-in-charge of Artillery records to the petitioner by its letter dated 31-10-1991. The rejection of the claim for disability pension is mainly on the ground that the petitioner's disability 'schizophrenia' was not attributable to nor aggravated by military Service. Aggrieved by this rejection order petitioner filed an appeal to the Ministry of Defence, Government of India vide his memorandum dated 12-3-1992. Even this appeal came to be rejected by the 1st respondent on 5th August, 1993 holding that no reasonable grounds were found in the petitioner's appeal to alter the decision rejecting the claim as already taken. It is these orders which has brought the petitioner before this Court, aggrieved by the same.

( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel Col. V. K. K. Nair (Retd.), appearing for the petitioner submits that the rejection of petitioner's claim for disability pension is arbitrary, capricious, untenable and contrary to the provisions of the Pension Entitlement Rules appended to the Pension Regulations (Army) 1961 and further submits that the Appellate