( 1 ) BY this judgement and order, we propose to deal with the matter relating to grant of disability pension to Army personnel below officer rank so that several similar petitions raising similar questions as have been raised in mis petition are disposed of.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution lie in a narrow compass. The Petitioner was. enrolled in the army as a regular combatant on 11th. January, 1984. Before his enrolment, he was subjected to a detailed medical examination. The petitioner was found medically fit at the time of his joining the Army.

( 3 ) IN the year 1990, the Petitioner developed neurotic depression. He was admitted to the Army Hospital on 7th December, 1990 at Nazirabad. Thereafter, he was transferred to a hospital in Jodhpur on 30th December, 1990.

( 4 ) ON 10th April, 1991, the Petitioner was recommended for being invalided out from the Army by the Medical Board. The Graded specialist (Psychiatry) opined thai: -

"taking into account his, basic inadequate personality and the perennial nature of his domestic stressors which had precipitated and perpetuated the neurotic breakdown in a predisposed individual it is strongly felt that he is incapable of any further improvement and his continuation in service will not be in the best interest of service. "

( 5 ) PURSUANT to the recommendation of the Medical Board, the petitioner was invalided out of service with 40% disability for two years on 8th May, 1991, under Rule 13 (3) of the Army Rules, 1954 read with paragraph III (iii) of the Table thereto.

( 6 ) THE Petitioner claimed disability pension but his claim was rejected by the Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions) on the ground, that the disability suffered by him was not attributable to military service. The rejection of his claim was communicated to him by a letter of the record Officer, Abhilekha Karyalay dated 30th November, 1991. The petitioner was advised to file an appeal within 6 months if he was aggrieved by the rejection of his claim.

( 7 ) THE Petitioner did not prefer any appeal. Instead, he issued a lawyer s notice to the Respondents for grant of disability pension. On 11lh november, 1992, the Petitioner was informed by the Senior Record officer, Abhilekha Karyalay that the issue of grant of disability pension to him was re-examined but he was not entitled to the same.

( 8 ) AGGRIEVED by the rejection of his claim for disability pension, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Respondents to grant him disability pension along with service pension with effect from the date of his retirement from, service, viz. , 9th May, 1991.

( 9 ) IN the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents, it is averred that the Invaliding Medical Board opined that the disability of the Petitioner, namely, neurotic depression was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service and it was a constitutional disorder not related to service. The disability was assessed at 40% for two years. The counter affidavit goes on to state that the claim of the Petitioner for disability pension was rejected by the pension sanctioning authority as the disability suffered by the Petitioner was not attributable to military service nor had it been aggravated by military service.

( 10 ) WE heard learned counsel for the parties in this case and in the batch of similar cases on. 12th, 23id, 29th April and 30th April, 7th, 9th, 14th, 16th, 21st, 27th, 29th and 31st May, 2002 when we reserved judgement learned counsels placed a large number of rules, regulations and orders before us apart from citing a larger number of cases.

( 11 ) IT may be mentioned here that we heard submissions mainly in cases pertaining to the Army. Most of the cases were with reference to personnel below officer rank. It appeal s to us, by and large, that the principles applicable to perssonnel below officer rank in the Army are the same for officers in the Army