SWATANTER KUMAR, J.

( 1 ) BY this common judgment, we shall dispose of the above six petitions as common question of law, based upon somewhat similar facts though with different diseases, falls for consideration of the court.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners have relied upon a recent judgment of a Division Bench of this court in the case of Ex. Cfn. Sugna Ram Ranoliya v. UOI and others, wp (C) No. 3699/2004, decided on 27. 7. 2006 as well as judgments of other High Courts and the Supreme court of India in support of their plea that the diseases for which the petitioners have been invalided out of military service are either attributable to or aggravated by military service and they are entitled to receive disability pension in accordance with Regulation 173 of the Pension regulations for the Army, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations' ). It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners in these different writ petitions that the medical record which has not been prepared in accordance with the regulations, defence service regulations and the instructions contained in the medical manual for army cannot form the basis for denial of such benefits. It is a common contention in all these cases that the petitioners had served the army for number of years without suffering from any ailment much less from any physical or mental disability. They were subjected to strict fitness standards during medical and physical tests and thereafter the rigorous training. They had no complaint of any kind prior to their being diagnosed as suffering from different ailments resulting in their invaliding out of military service. In all these petitions, the petitioners have been invalided out of army service as a result of their suffering from Carcinoma Oesphaus, Schizophrenia, neurosis, Essential or Primary Hypertension and Psoriasis with arthropathy. It is the case of the petitioners that they were not suffering from any of the diseases indicated in the medical report at the time of their induction into army and for a number of years when they were serving. It is the rigours of service posting at different places including high altitudes or injuries suffered by them during the course of their service that resulted in onset of such diseases. All these diseases even if said to be not attributable would, in any case, be aggravated by army service. The regulations, instructions and entitlement rules clearly show that the intention of the rule making authorities is to extend such benefit to the sufferers rather than deprive them of such a benefit. While heavily relying

upon the Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Ex. Cfn. Sugna Ram Ranoliya (supra) ,they laid emphasis on the following paragraphs of the said judgment:-

"22. In order to examine this aspect in some depth we may refer to certain hypothetical illustrations. A person who joined Army after satisfying all the prescribed standards and rigours of physical and medical tests, after having rendered service for number of years in Army, without suffering any illness and then is suddenly taken ill, normally such an illness would be attributable to or aggravated by military service unless in the opinion of the Medical Board there was clinical or investigative evidence to show to the contrary. It is possible that an individual may join the Army in a fit condition and despite normal medical examinations it was not possible to diagnose a disease at the time of his entry into service, however, such a disease surfaces after his joining the Army and upon investigations it could safely be stated that the disease was existing even prior to his joining the Army Service. It could also be found and medically demonstrated that the disease was 'constitutional' though it appeared or aggravated after the individual had joined the Army Service.

23. The present case is one of the case out of a bunch of writ petitions which were heard by u