1. Petitioner has been denied disability pension. He has approached this court. The disability from which the petitioner came to suffer has been indicated as generalised tonic clonic seizure 345. The disability has been assessed at 30%.

2. The stand taken by the respondent is that the petitioner is not entitled to disability pension as the disease from which the petitioner came to suffer is no! attributable to army service. in para 8 of the reply filed by the respondents it is slated that the claim of the petitioner for disability pension was forwarded to the office of chief controller of defence account (pension) at allahabad and this office has rejected the claim of the pelitioner. The reason given as indicated above is that the disease is constitutional and is not attributable or aggravated by (Sic).

3. The position of law is well settled that in case mention is not made of a disease at the time of entry of a person into service then the disease in question which leads to discharge of the person consented from service would be deemed to have occurred on account of hazards of army service. A Division Bench of this court in the case reported as union of india versus rattan lal, 1999

Click Here to Read the rest of this document