1. Petitioner-Sish Ram, who was discharged from services of army on medical ground, has filed this writ petition with the prayer that action of the respondents in not granting him disability pension w.e.f. 15/10/1985 be declared illegal and arbitrary and respondents may be directed to grant the same w.e.f. 15/10/1985 with arrears @ 24% p.a.

2. Shri Harish Maan, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner was enrolled in army on 5/3/1976 in the Medical Category 'A'. He served in operational areas of the army from February 1977 to July 1977 and further from December 1981 to December 1983. The petitioner was granted casual leave w.e.f. SBCWP NO.4929/04. 2 4/4/1984 and while on such leave, he accidentally fell down from the roof of his house on 4/4/1984 and sustained severe injuries. The court enquiry that was held to go into the circumstances under which he sustained injuries having examined all the witnesses opined that petitioner sustained injuries of "fractures compression LV4, LV5 Comp and fracture Calcaeum (RT)" on 24/4/1984 at about 0400 hours while he fell down from the roof of his house. It held that individual is not to be blamed for such injury and the injury sustained is attributable to military service. Learned counsel further submitted that Commandant of the Unit, with which petitioner was attached concurred with the opinion of the court of enquiry who also opined that the injuries sustained by the petitioner were attributable to military service. After his hospitalization, petitioner was placed in Medical Category 'C' w.e.f. 31/8/1984 and in category 'C' permanent w.e.f. 27/3/1985. He was not provided sheltered appointment and he was discharged from service on 15/10/1985 in lower Medical Category 'C' Permanent with exemplary character after 9 years and 223 days service to be counted as 10 years. The petitioner was only 27 years when he was discharged. Even the medical board considered the disability of the petitioner as 50% attributable to military service assumed the disability as 50%. It was argued that although as per Rule 4 of the Entitlement Rules, the petitioner would be treated invalidated out from service and as per Rule 5 of the Entitlement Rules, the deterioration in his health which has taken place is attributable to military service and, therefore, he cannot be called upon to prove the conditions of entitlement and as per Rule 9, he will be entitled to receive benefit of doubt because as per Rule 13, the injuries sustained by him shall be deemed to have been resulted from military service. As per Rule 19 of the Entitlement Rules, aggravation by service is to be accepted and under Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations for Army, he is fully entitled for grant of disability pension. Respondents, arbitrarily by their order dated 4/4/1986 rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of disability pension holding that his disability is not attributable to military service. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the rejection order dated 4/4/1986, was also mechanically rejected by the Government of India vide its order dated 20/7/2004. None of these orders have dealt with either the law or facts in their true perspective. Learned counsel relied on the judgments of Supreme Court in Joginder Singh v. U.O.I. & Ors. : 1996(2) S.L.R. 149 and this Court in Maru Ram (since deceased) v. U.O.I. & Ors. : 2004 W.L.C. (Raj.) U.C. 615 . Learned counsel also relied on judgment of Allahabad High Court in Shanker Lal v. Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence (Pen-A), New Delhi : Mil LJ 2007 All 138 and Gurmit Singh Butter (Ex.Sepoy) v. Union of India and others, 2000(5) SLR 907.

3. Per contra, Ms.Priyanka Pareek, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Union of India opposed the writ petition and argued that Supreme Court judgment on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner arose out of the case in which concerned employee was on casual leave. In the present case,