JUDGMENT

Ritu Bahri, J. - Petitioner, Ex NK/TA Chaman Lal has knocked the door of this Court, seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of impugned order dated 06.03.2006 (P-3), order dated 27.03.2008 (P-5) and order dated 25.11.2010 (P-6) whereby his claim for disability pension, has been rejected.

2. Petitioner was enrolled in the Army on 28.10.1988 as Sepoy/TA and was thereafter discharged before 15 years of service on medical ground i.e WASTED LEG SYNDROME (RT). In August, 1999, petitioner felt pain in his right leg, medically diagnosed as "WASTED LEG SYNDROME (RT) and was placed first time in low medical cat 'CEE (TEMP)1 w.e.f 11.01.2000 and subsequently w.e.f 11.01.2001 was placed in medical category 'BEE (Permanent)'. As per release Medical Board Proceedings dated 18.10.2002, which was conducted at the time of his discharge, the medical category of the petitioner i.e SIHIAIP2E1, with the disability "WASTED LEG SYNDROME (RT) @ 30% for life. Petitioner filed appeal before Armed Forces Tribunal at Chandigarh-respondent No. 5, which was dismissed, vide order dated 06.03.2006 (P-3). Petitioner then filed second appeal before Defence Minister's Appellate Committee on pension, which was also dismissed vide order dated 27.03.2008 (P-5). Lastly, the petitioner approached the learned Armed Forces Tribunal at Chandigarh for grant of disability pension, which was dismissed, vide order dated 25.11.2010 (P-6)

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for grant of disability pension as per Regulation No. 173 and 189 of Pension Regulations for The Army, 1961 (for short 'Regulations 1961'). Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the claim of the petitioner for grant of disability pension has been wrongly rejected on the grounds mentioned below:-

(i) The disability of the petitioner is neither aggravated nor attributable to Army Service

(ii) The disease is constitutional disorder.

(iii) The disease is idiopathic condition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is relying upon a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a case of Dharamvir Singh vs. UOI and others, 2013 (3) SCT 778 whereby the Rules relating to disability pension, have been examined in detail. It has been observed that no note of any disease has been recorded at the time of appellant's acceptance for military service. The respondents have failed to bring on record any document to suggest that the appellant was under treatment for such a disease or by hereditary he is suffering from such disease. In absence of any note in the service record at the time of acceptance of joining of appellant it was incumbent on the part of the Medical Board to call for records and look into the same before coming to an opinion that the disease could not have been detected on medical examination prior to the acceptance for military service, but nothing is on the record to suggest that any such record was called for by the Medical Board or looked into it and no reasons have been recorded in writing to come to the conclusion that the disability is not due to military service.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 has argued that before discharge from service, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, vide 14 Medium Regiment Letter No. 323801/487/A/ dated 22.09.2002 to which petitioner gave his reply. Reference has been made to release Medical Board Proceedings dated 18.10.2002 (P-2), which were conducted at the time of his discharge, whereby his disability was regarded as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. The degree of disability was assessed at 30% for life long.

6. Mr. Verma has further argued that petitioner is not entitled to Disability Element in terms of Regulation No. 173 of Regulations 1961 Part I. The petitioner was granted Service Element w.e.f 01.01.2003, vide PCDA (P) Allahabad PPO No. D/010022/2004 dated 25.02.2004. As per Regulations 173 of Regulations 1