Judgment Permod Kohli, J. 1. The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army on 28.8.1971. At the time of his enrolment, he was in category `AYE. After rendering 15 years 9 months and 11 days service he was discharged from the Army on 22.5.1987. All along this period, petitioner remained in category `AYE and was declared fit for re-enrolment into DSC. The petitioner was re- enrolled in DSC on 16.6.1990. While on casual leave he fell sick on 15.2.1992 and was admitted in Military Hospital, Jalandhar Cantt. He was diagnosed as a case of Affective Psychosis (Mania) and on the recommendations of the Invaliding Medical Board he was invalided out on 13.08.1992 being in low medical category `EEE with 40% disability. He applied for grant of disability pension. However, vide P.C.D.A. (P) letter dated 17.09.1993 he was intimated that his disability is neither attributable nor aggravated to the military service and he is not entitled to disability element of pension. This order was served upon the petitioner through letter dated 7.10.1993. The petitioner preferred an appeal, which also came to be rejected vide letter dated 7.5.1996. The petitioner has accordingly filed the present petition. 2. Even though the respondents have filed the reply reiterating the stand in the rejection order. However, at the time of hearing, it is agreed to by learned counsel for the parties that the controversy is covered by a Division Bench judgment of this court, passed in C.W.P. No. 7323 of 2007 on 4.12.2007 wherein following directions have been issued :- "It is not in dispute that the petitioner was subjected to various medical tests at the time of entry into service and during the course of his service also, periodical medical check-ups were conducted. It is a well-known fact that army personnel have to discharge their duties in different climatic conditions. They have to withstand the rigorous of army discipline to the satisfaction of the higher authorities. At no point of time, the petitioner was found to be suffering from any mental disease much less schizophrenia. The medical board examined the petitioner and found disability to the extent of 50%. 3. They have to withstand the rigorous of army discipline to the satisfaction of the higher authorities. At no point of time, the petitioner was found to be suffering from any mental disease much less schizophrenia. The medical board examined the petitioner and found disability to the extent of 50%. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Delhi High Court judgment reported as 2007 (1) S.L.R. 616 (Ex-Sepoy Gopal Singh Dadwal v. Union of India and Others) and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Tarsem Singh v. Union of India, 2007 (3) S.L.R. 442. For the sake of repetition, we may add that there is nothing on record to show that petitioner was suffering from schizophrenia at the time of his entry into army service nor the said disease was ever detected in various medical check-ups conducted during the course of army service spanning over 11 years. Petitioner developed the disease only in the year 1992, whereas, he joined the army service in the year 1981. He remained posted at different places including the high atitudes areas, therefore, the onset and aggravation of the disease can well be attributed to the army service conditions. 4. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that order Annexure P/4 is whereby petitioner has been denied disability pension, suffers from the element of arbitrariness and is contrary to the relevant rules and instructions. 5. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and order, Annexure P-4 is quashed. The respondents are directed to release disability pension to the petitioner vis-a-vis arrears thereof within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. However, in view of the undertaking given by learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of issuing notice of motion, the arrears of disability pension shall be restricted to 38 months prior to filing of this writ petition. 6. This petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment. The petitioner shall also be entitled to the similar relief, granted in the aforesaid petition. However, it is directed that the payment of arrears shall be restricted to three years preceding the filing of this petition.