A disease which led to an individual's discharge or death 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 military service.

( 1 ) THE petitioner was enrolled as a combatant soldier in the Army on 9th June, 1982. At the time of enrolment, complete medical checkup was done of the petitioner as prescribed under the military rules. At the time of his induction in the Army, he was not suffering from any kind of disease. No remarks or note to that effect was given by the Medical Board at the time of his entering the service.

( 2 ) THE petitioner after enrolment underwent training and other activities in the peace as well as in the forward areas. In the year 1990 petitioner developed mental problem as a result of which he was admitted in the Military Hospital. On account of his mental ailment he was placed in permanent low medical category eee . After the petitioner was placed in the permanent low medical category he was recommended for Medical Board. The Medical Board which was constituted assessed the disability element of the petitioner above 20% and recommended invalidating out of service the petitioner. The Commanding Officer of the petitioner sanctioned the discharge as well as recommended disability pension w. e. f. 6th July,1991. Duly sanctioned pension claim was forwarded to the Officer Incharge Sikh Regiment, Ramgarh Cantt. (Bihar) for disbursing the pension claim. However, respondent No. 2 the Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad rejected the military pension claim of the petitioner on the ground that disability of the petitioner on account of which he was invalided out of service was neither attributable to service nor aggravated due to service. Respondent No. 2 rejected the claim vide letter dated 16th March, 1992 which was informed to the petitioner vide letter dated 30th March, 1992 and 22nd July, 1992 by respondent No. 3. The petitioner filed appeal which was also rejected. The representation made by him also stood rejected.

( 3 ) IT is in this background that the petitioner approached this Court seeking direction against the respondents for grant of disability pension w. e. f. the date of his discharge i. e. 6th July, 1991.

( 4 ) RESPONDENTS in its reply has taken the plea that as per the record the petitioner suffered from psychiatric disorder way back in October, 1982. He was admitted in the Military Hospital, Ramgarh Cantt for treatment of his disease called "agnevul GARIS" for which he took the treatment from 8th October, 1982 to 30th October, 1982. He suffered from this disease as he got worried about his married sister being cheated by her husband. Again he suffered from myalgia from 25th August, 1989 to 1st September, 1989. He had to be admitted in Ramgarh Hospital on 25th May, 1990 because he suffered from neurosis . He was, thereafter, transferred to Military Hospital, Danapur Cantt. There he remained under treatment from 12th June, 1990 to 25th September, 1990. Due to his illness from a disease called SCHIZOPHRENIA, he was admitted in the Base Hospital in Delhi Cantt on 18th October, 1990 and was thereafter discharged on 27th October, 1990. He was again admitted in the Army Hospital, Delhi Cantt on 13th November, 1990 to 2nd February, 1991 and from 30th March, 1991 to 6th July, 1991. He was recommended to be invalided out of service. The \ Invaliding Medical Board, Delhi examined the petitioner on 12th June, 1991 and opined that the disease from which he suffered i. e. SCHIZOPHRENIA was neither attributable to nor aggravated by the military service. The Medical Board, however, assessed his disability at 40% for two years.

( 5 ) THE short point for consideration is whether the disease from which the petitioner suffered i. e. "schizophrenia" was due to his military service or got aggravated because of his service or was it constitutional disorder? To answer this question the respondents have heavily relied on the Medical Board opinion which says this illness was due to constitutional disorder. Counsel for the petitioner says this was not a constitutional disease. Moreover to arrive at this conclus