The onus of proof for disability pension rests with the Air Force authorities, and the Court has the power to condone service deficiencies in equity jurisdiction.

N.N. Mathur, J.-The instant special appeal is directed against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 17th September, 1997 dismissing the writ petition.

2. The short facts giving rise to the instant special appeal are that the appellant joined the Indian Air Force as Sepoy on 16.02.1974. While in service, he suffered from the disease Schizophrenia. He was given treatment at Army Hospital, Delhi Centt during the period 06.08.1982 to 04.03.1983. He was discharged from the hospital on 20th September, 1983. He was again admitted to Army Hospital, Delhi Cantt because of the abnormal behaviour in his Unit. Thus, a Medical Board was constituted which recommended to discharge him from service. The recommendation is extracted as follows:-

“This 30 years old CPL with about 9 years of service is an old case of “Schizophernia” was first

admitted to this hospital in August, 1982. After treatment, he was retained in service in category

“CEE” (Psychological) for 6/12 years w.e.f. 2 Mar, 1983. He was admitted on 11 September,

1983. Patient was in relapse. He was undergoing detention as he absented without leave. His CO

report on AFMSF-10 dated 06 September, 1983 was poor. No physical abnormality was found.

Mental status revealed features of relapse of his original disability in the form loss of touch with

reality, paranoid and suicidal ideas, impaired Judgment and lack of insight.”

Thus, the appellant was discharged from service by order dated. The appellant made a claim for

grant of disability pension as admissible to him in accordance with the Rules in force, but his claim was rejected as informed vide communication dated 210.1984. The appellant made a representation to the higher authorities, which was rejected by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence by communication dated 09.06.1987. However, he was allowed disability benefits admissible under Air Force Group Insurance Society. Having failed before the Air Force Authorities the appellant filed a writ petition claiming disability pension primarily on the ground that the disease due to which he was medically ruled out and became unfit was attributable to Air Force Service. The learned Single Judge having held that the appellant failed to prove that the disease was attributable to Air Force Service or has been aggravated because of Air Force Service, dismissed the writ petition by the impugned order.

3. Assailing the Judgment of the learned Single Judge it is contended by the learned Counsel that the report of the Medical Board relied upon by the learned Single Judge only discloses the extent of disability of the appellant and not the reason of disability as to whether it was attributable to service or aggravated by the service. The learned Counsel submits that the appellant is entitled to disability pension under Paragraph 173 of Pension Regulations for Army Part I, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulation of 1961). He has also referred to Rule 7(b) of the Appendix II of the (Entitlement Rules) 1962. The learned Counsel has placed reliance on two decisions rendered by the learned Single Judge. The learned Counsel has referred to S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1083/2001 Ex. Sgt. Tejpal Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., decided on 21st February, 2004. Another decision is Chhatar Singh (Ex. Sgt) vs. Union of India & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1400/1997 decided on 3rd January, 2005. The decision is based on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated 012.2004 rendered in SAW 1/2004. He has also placed reliance on the decision of Division Bench Judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Union of India & Ors. vs. Shyam Lal Malhotra, reported in 1995 (6) SLR page 405. A decision of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court in Ramesh Lal Mullah vs. Union of India, reported in 1998 (4) SCT page 22. There is another Judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ex Constable Kushal Singh vs. Union of India, reported in 2001(1) Administrative T