IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.970 of 2010 Date of decision : 26.8.2010 Union of India and others … Appellants Versus Ex.Rect.Kuldip Singh …Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice M.M.Kumar Hon’ble Ms.Justice Ritu Bahri Present: Ms.Geeta Singhwal, Advocate for the appellants. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.Kumar, J. The Union of India has filed the instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against order dated 7.10.2009 rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court. The writ petitioner/respondent has been held entitled to grant of disability pension. It has been found as a fact that the writ petitioner/respondent suffered from the disease of Unspecified Psychosis (mental disease of Schizophrenia). He remained in the Military Hospital, Davlali and thereafter, he was transferred to the Military Hospital, Puna. Ultimately, the writ petitioner/respondent was brought before the Invalidiating Medical Board which assessed his disability to the extent of 70%. Consequently, he was placed in the medical category EEE. Thereafter, he was discharged from Army service on 15.7.1978. He claimed for disability pension but the same was rejected on the ground that disease suffered by him was not attributable to or aggravated by army service. Learned Single Judge has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ex.Sepoy Bhola Ram vs. Union of LPA No.970 of 2010 India and others (Civil Writ Petition No.10451 of 2007 decided on 27.3.2008). It is well settled that merely because an army personal was discharged from service, do not constitute a valid ground to deny him the benefit of disability pension once it is found that he had suffered disability especially when discharge is on the recommendation made by the Medical Board. The Medical Board has down-graded his medical category to EEE Category We have heard learned counsel for the appellants at some length and have perused the judgment rendered in the case of Ex.Sepoy Bhola Ram (supra). The learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to show any distinguishing feature between the facts of the case in hand and those of the cited judgment in Ex.Sepoy Bhola Ram’s case (supra). There is, thus, no merit in the instant appeal, and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M.Kumar ) Judge (Ritu Bahri) Judge 26.08.2010 sd 2