JUDGMENT

Mukundakam Sharma, J. The facts and issues arising for consideration in these writ petitions being similar, we are disposing of all these writ petitions by this common judgment.

2. In all these writ petitions the principal prayer is for issuance of directions to the respondents to pay disability pension to all the petitioners. All the petitioners herein were invalidated out of service on medical grounds.

3. According to the petitioners, when the petitioners were enrolled in service they had undergone a detailed medical check up and examination. In the said detailed and extensive medical check up the petitioners were found medically fit and they were thereafter enrolled in the military service. During the Course of their service they had suffered a diseases for the reason of which they have been declared to be medically unfit to be retained in military service and, therefore, the natural presumption and conclusion is that the petitioners suffered from the disability which is attributable to and aggravated by military service. It was submitted that the petitioners in their service career had to go through stress and strain connected with the service; that the nature of duties was difficult and they also had to render their services in difficult terrains and areas and that the said factors were primarily responsible for the diseases or aggravation thereof resulting in the invalidating diseases. Therefore, the petitioners should be considered to be suffering from disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military service.

4. According to the respondents, the diseases for which the petitioners have been boarded out were neither attributable nor aggravated by military service. Counsel appearing for the respondents have submitted that all the petitioners herein were boarded but on the basis of the reports of the Invaliding Medical Board which found that the diseases from which the petitioners have been found suffering are responsible for their disabilities but the disabilities are not attributable to or aggravated by military service. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of grant of disability pension.

In the light of the aforesaid submissions we have considered the records and the various decisions to which our attention was drawn during the Course of the arguments by the counsel appearing for the parties.

5. Criteria and the conditions for grant of disability pension, so far army personnel are concerned, have been dealt with under Rule 173 of the Pension Regulations which provides as follows:

"(a) Individual should have been invalided out of Army on account of disability,

(b) Disability must have been attributable to or aggravated by military service, and

(c) Disability should have been assessed at 20% or more."

The question of attributability or aggravation is determined under Appendix-II of Pension Regulations. In 1982, a set of rules called `Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards 1982' were brought into force and after promulgation of the said rules the question of attributability would have to be decided and determined in accordance with the provisions of the said Rules. A guideline is also framed which lays down the mode and manner as also the guiding principles for determining such cases have been set out. The aforesaid Entitlement Rules have been made effective w.e.f. January 1, 1982, and the aforesaid set of rules is required to be read in conjunction with the Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pensions) 1980. It is provided in the aforesaid Entitlement Rules read with the guidelines that invalidation from service is a necessary pre-condition for grant of disability pension. In paragraph 5 thereof a presumption is to be drawn for determining the question of entitlement to such disability pension when it provides as follows:

"5. The approach to the question of entitlement to casualty pensionary awards and evaluation of disabilities shall be on the following presum