JUDGMENT : K. Natarajan, J. This writ petition is filed by an army personnel being aggrieved by the order dated 22.08.2024 passed by the Armed Force Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi in O.A No. 49 of 2024 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for the grant of invalid pension. 2. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was enrolled as army personnel on 14.12.2018 and he was invalided out of service on 10.12.2019 on the ground that he was suffering from ‘Moderate Depressive Episode and Intentional Self Harm by Poisoning’ assessed at 40% for life. Subsequent to his discharge due to invalidation for mental depression, he filed an application for the grant of invalid pension as well as disability pension which came to be rejected by the authorities. Hence, he has approached the AFT, Kochi by filing the above Original Application, which was rejected by the AFT. Hence the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contented that when he was recruited for the army service, he was mentally fit. During the training period, he has undergone serious training harassment, ragging and insults from the colleague army personnel, due to which he has suffered mental depression and when he was taking tea, somebody poisoned the tea and he was taken to the hospital and he was under tension and depressed mood. Taking into consideration the above aspects, the Release Medical Board opined that he was suffering from mental depression assessed at 40% throughout the life and he was invalided out of service. 5. It is further contented that as per clause (2) of Annexure A13 letter dated 16.07.2020 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Department of Ex- Servicemen Welfare, in cases where Armed Forces Personnel are invalided out of service on account of any bodily or mental infirmity, which is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service and which permanently incapacitates them from military service as well as civil reemployment, invalid pension would be admissible to them. Therefore, he prayed for setting aside the impugned order and for a direction to the respondents to issue invalid pension. Therefore, he prayed for setting aside the impugned order and for a direction to the respondents to issue invalid pension. The learned counsel for the petitioner confined the prayer to the grant of only invalid pension, but not disability pension. 6. Per contra, learned Central Government Counsel seriously objected the petition and supported the order of the AFT contenting that during the training period, the petitioner failed in shooting and thereby, he gone into depression and to end the life, he took rat poison by purchasing rat cake from the military campus and consumed it. Thereafter, he was taken to the Command Hospital, Bangalore and found that he was suffering from mental depression at 40% throughout life. Therefore, he was invalided out of service. However, he is entitled to civil service. It is contented that as per the letter issued by the Government of India, a person should be entitled for invalid pension if he is invalided both out of military service as well as the civil service. But, in the instant case, Annexure.C1 certificate is produced by the respondents, as per which the petitioner is entitled for all types of employment in civil and therefore, he is not entitled for invalid pension. The Tribunal considered all these aspects and rightly rejected the application and hence, she prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, contented that though as per clause (2) of the letter dated 16.07.2020 a person is entitled for invalid pension, if he is incapacitated from military service as well as civil reemployment, in a similar matter in Lt. A.K. Thapa (Released) v. Union of India and Others (judgment dated 07.07.2023 in O.A No. 2240 of 2019) , the Principal Bench, AFT, Delhi observed that clause (2) of the MoD letter dated 16.07.2020 for grant of invalid pension is unconstitutional and unreasonable. The same was upheld by the Delhi High Court and was not yet reversed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore it is contented that even if it is stated by respondents that he is eligible for reemployment in civil service, that cannot be a ground for rejecting the invalid pension. The same was upheld by the Delhi High Court and was not yet reversed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore it is contented that even if it is stated by respondents that he is eligible for reemployment in civil service, that cannot be a ground for rejecting the invalid pension. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgments of this Court in Recruit Sani Rajendra Patil v. Union of India and others (judgment dated 13.02.2026 in W.P.(C) No. 34096 of 2025), Nandakumar J v. Union of India and others (judgment dated 29.05.2025 in WP(C) No. 43516 of 2023); Ex No.14460726 W Gunner K V Sankara Narayanan v. Union of India (judgment dated 29.05.2025 in W.P.(C) No. 38259 of 2024; and the order passed by the AFT, Principal Bench, Delhi in Lt. A.K. Thapa (Released) v. Union of India and Others (judgment dated 07.07.2023 in O.A No. 2240 of 2019). 8. On a perusal of the records, it is not in dispute that the petitioner enrolled in military service on 14.12.2018 and at the time of entering the service, his mental condition was good and he was fit for enrolment and accordingly, he was recruited. Admittedly, while he was under training, he was said to be suffering from mental depression due to self harming by poison. Hence, the Release Medical Board invalided him out of service by considering the disability at 40% throughout life. After the discharge, though the petitioner has not immediately filed any application, later he had filed an application for grant of invalid pension as well as disability pension which was rejected by the authorities as well as the Tribunal. 9. The Tribunal considered the statement made by the respondents, especially the hospital record where the petitioner was taken to the Command Hospital (Air Force), Bangalore before the Graded Specialist (Psychiatry), where he was said to be informed that he has not performed well during the rifle shooting due to which he has developed low mood and thereafter, he purchased the rat cake and consumed it at 5.15 p.m., on 27.07.2019. Subsequently, the family members were informed and based upon the report, the medical board assessed the disability at 40% throughout life neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. 10. Subsequently, the family members were informed and based upon the report, the medical board assessed the disability at 40% throughout life neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. 10. It is an admitted fact that it is not disputed by the petitioner that the 40% disability was aggravated due to military service. The contention of the respondents is that the petitioner is not entitled for any kind of pension. However, the Ministry of Defence issued Annexure A13 letter dated 16.07.2020 to the Chiefs of the Army Staff, Naval Staff and Air Staff stating that where the personnel invalided out of service due to any bodily or mental infirmity which is neither attributable nor aggravated by military service and which permanently incapacitates them from military service as well as civil reemployment are also entitled for invalid pension if he is discharged from service on or after 04.01.2019. Though the cut off date ‘04.01.2019’ has been struck down by the Principal Bench, Delhi, the same was upheld by the Delhi High Court and was accepted by this Court also in various cases for granting invalid pension only to the persons who retired on after 04.01.2019. Admittedly, the petitioner was discharged after 04.01.2019 and therefore, clause (4) will not be applicable to him. Clause (2) of Annexure A13 letter dated 16.07.2020 reads as under: “The proposal to extend the provisions of Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare O.M. No. 21/01/2016- P&PW(F) dated 12.02.2019 to Armed Forces personnel has been under consideration of this Ministry. The undersigned is directed to state that Invalid Pension would henceforth also be admissible to Armed Forces Personnel with less than 10 years of qualifying service in cases where personnel are invalided out of service on account of any bodily or mental Infirmity which is Neither Attributable to Nor Aggravated by Military Service and which permanently Incapacitates them from military service as well as civil reemployment.” 11. The learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contented that the petitioner is entitled for reemployment in civil service and therefore, the above provision is not applicable to the petitioner. The same was accepted by the Tribunal. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the order passed by the Principal AFT, Delhi in Lt. A.K. Thapa (Released) cited supra, in which in paragraph 34, it is held as follows: "34…. The same was accepted by the Tribunal. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the order passed by the Principal AFT, Delhi in Lt. A.K. Thapa (Released) cited supra, in which in paragraph 34, it is held as follows: "34…. Thus we hold that the words in clause 2 of the MoD letter dated 16.07.2020 which requires a permanent incapacity for Civil Re-employment as well- i.e. which states 'Permanently Incapacitates them from the military service as well as Civil re-employment for the receipt of Invalid Pension to be wholly unconstitutional qua the requirement of permanent incapacitation for civil re-employment for Invalid pension being also admissible to Armed Forces Personnel with less than 10 years of qualifying service in cases where personnel are invalided out of service on account of any bodily or mental infirmity which is Neither Attributable to Nor Aggravated by Military Service and which permanently incapacitates them from military service and the said words in clause(2) of the MoD letter dated 16.07.2020 for grant of invalid pension by the Armed Forces Personnel being wholly unconstitutional and unreasonable and not based on any intelligible differentia nor any reasonable classification are thus set aside, i.e. the words in the MoD letter dated 16.07.2020 for grant of invalid pension, which requires the permanent incapacitation of the personnel of the Armed Forces 'as well' as from Civil Re- employment for the grant of Invalid pension in cases where the Armed Forces on account of any bodily or mental infirmity even though it be Neither attributable to nor Aggravated by Military Service are invalided out to be unconstitutional and the same is thus set aside." 12. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of the AFT, Delhi has been challenged before the High Court of Delhi, where the Delhi High Court also upheld the same. Therefore, we are of the opinion that once the army personnel are invalided out of service due to mental infirmity, though it is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service and which permanently incapacitates them from military service as well as civil reemployment, they are entitled to invalided pension. The disability of the petitioner is calculated at 40% for life and therefore, as per clause (2) of Annexure A13 letter dated 16.07.2020, he is entitled for the invalid pension as prayed for by him. 13. The disability of the petitioner is calculated at 40% for life and therefore, as per clause (2) of Annexure A13 letter dated 16.07.2020, he is entitled for the invalid pension as prayed for by him. 13. We are also of the opinion that the Tribunal did not consider the case of the petitioner properly and rejected the same. Therefore, the order under challenge calls for interference and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant invalid pension to the petitioner, subject to eligibility in accordance with the Regulations. The entire exercise shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.