Judgment Permod Kohli, J. 1. Notice of motion. 2. Ms. Ranjana Shahi, Central Govt. standing counsel, who is present in the Court accepts notice on behalf of the Assistant Solicitor General for repondent. 3. Petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army on 24.2.1994 as a soldier G.D. During his service petitioner suffered from a disease called Generalized Seizure and was finally invalided cut of Army service on 30.9.2001 by the Invaliding Medical Board. 4. It is not In dispute that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in I.P.A. No. 547 of 2001 in C.W.P. No. 17043 of 1998 on 11.2.2009, wherein following observations have been made :- "14. We are of the view that the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Baljit Singhs case and S. Balachandra Nairs case (supra) are distinguishable on facts. In the present case it has been admitted in the written statement there was an episode of Generalised Tonic Clonic Seizure on 11.10.1998 when the petitioner was in sertvice and he was given treatment which continued thereafter. In the opinion of teh Medical Board Annexure RA, there is no reason given as to how the said illness did not relate to the disability in question. The disability is clearly relatable to the episode which is duly admitted in the written statement. It may have been a different matter if such episode had not happened. The opinion of the medical board in the present case was thus arbitrary in ignoring the admitted incident. 15. In Naveen Chander (supra), it was held that the opinion of Medical Board must be self contained and well reasoned and supported by documentary proof and therefore, the opinion that the disease was not attributable to the military service was without any basis. Moreover, para 14 of 1982 Rules provides that if a person is fit at the time of entry into service, there will be presumption that the disease is due to military service through on facts it could be established that the disability existed prior to entry into service and the mere fact that such disease was not detected at the time of entry into service will not be conclusive. Similar view has been taken by this Court in Joginder Singh and Ex. Similar view has been taken by this Court in Joginder Singh and Ex. Sepoy Bhola Ram (supra) and the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hemant Kumar (supra). 16. In view of the above no fault can be found with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge that the disability of the petitioner was attributable to the military service and he was entitled to disability pension from the date of his discharge from the military service. 17. The appeal dismissed." 5. Accordingly, present petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment. Petitioner shall also be entitled to the same relief. However, the payment of arrears shall be restricted to three years preceding the filing of the writ petition. Petition disposed of.