JUDGMENT A.B. Pal, J. 1. Having denied the freedom fighters pension under the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme, 1972 introduced by the Government of India on 25th anniversary of the Independence, the above Petitioners have filed the writ petitions seeking direction to the Respondent No. 1 the Union of India and the Respondent No. 2 (State of Tripura) to allow them the pension under the said scheme and to set aside the communication/decision of the Union of India denying the benefits of this scheme. The facts and law involved in all the writ cases being similar though not same, the issues involved have been taken up for adjudication by a single judgment. 2. As stated above, the Government of India introduced a scheme known as Freedom Fighter's Pension Scheme, 1972 for grant of pension to freedom fighters or in case of death, to their families. There was, however, an income bar for the purpose of eligibility. Those having annual income less than Rs. 5,000/- would be entitled to benefits if they had suffered imprisonment for at least six months for their participation in the freedom struggle. Persons claiming to have suffered imprisonment for six months for the purpose of pension were required to produce prison documents or a certificate from co-prisoner as documentary proof for expeditious disposal of claims. This scheme was replaced by Swatantra Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme (SSSPS) will effect from 01-08-80 removing the income ceiling and liberalizing the term of imprisonment from six months to three months in case of women freedom fighters and those belonging to SC/ST community. The requirement of Jail Certificate or in case of non-availability of such certificate, a co-prisoner's certificate from at least two prominent freedom fighters continued to be the requirement for expeditious sanction of the pension. However, if the freedom fighter issuing the Certificate was an MP, MLA or ex-MP or ex-MLA, then only one certificate from him would serve the purpose. In all the cases in hand, the Petitioners claimed that they or, as the case may be, their husband or father had suffered imprisonment in connection with their participation in the freedom struggle. In four of the above writ cases, the Petitioners claimed that they were the freedom fighters and suffered imprisonment for six months or more. In all the cases in hand, the Petitioners claimed that they or, as the case may be, their husband or father had suffered imprisonment in connection with their participation in the freedom struggle. In four of the above writ cases, the Petitioners claimed that they were the freedom fighters and suffered imprisonment for six months or more. In eight of the above cases, the Petitioners are the wives of the persons claimed to be the freedom fighters, who could not claim the pension during their lifetime. In one case, the children of the freedom fighters are the Petitioners. In all these cases, the pension was eventually denied on the ground that the Petitioners claims were found to have no basis by the Review Committee and they also failed to produce documentary evidence as required by the Scheme. Most of them obtained certificate from the local Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) though the requirement was Prison's Certificate or Co-Prisoner's Certificate. The factual position of all these cases may now be examined separately and briefly. 3. IN W.P. (C) No. 518 OF 1999 The Petitioner Sri Sukharanjan Deb in this case was sanctioned provisional pension, which was later suspended on 24-02-76 by a communication issued from Political Department of the Government of Tripura. At the same time, the Petitioner was requested to produce either Jail certificate or co-prisoner's certificate. However, as the required Certificate could not be produced the Respondent No. 1 the Union of India finally cancelled the pension of the Petitioner on 19-11-93. About 252 Petitioner whose pensions were suspended filed a suit (TS No. 158 of 1979) in the Court of Munsiff, Agartala and as per order of that Court a Review Committee was constituted to examine those cases. On review, the Committee recommended restoration of pension in some cases and rejected the claims of others. The Petitioner's case did not find favour from the said Review Committee. 4. CIVIL RULE No. 194 OF 1998 In this case the Petitioner along with application for pension enclosed several documents in support of his imprisonment in connection with his participation in the freedom struggle. The Petitioner's case did not find favour from the said Review Committee. 4. CIVIL RULE No. 194 OF 1998 In this case the Petitioner along with application for pension enclosed several documents in support of his imprisonment in connection with his participation in the freedom struggle. On the recommendation of the State Government, the President of India sanctioned a provisional pension in his favour with effect from 15-08-72, but it was later suspended by the Respondent No. 1 on 05-01-80 on the ground that the documents submitted by him in support of his imprisonment were not genuine. A show cause notice was issued to him by the Respondent No. 1 as to why the provisional pension should not be cancelled for the aforesaid reasons. The Petitioner replied that the allegation of producing forged documentary evidence was not at all correct. However, his reply did not satisfy the Respondent No. 1 who cancelled the provisional pension of the Petitioner. In the affidavit-in-opposition, the Respondent No. 1 specifically contended that on verification it was found that Sri P.K. Sengupta, ex-MLA, Sylhet did neither know the Petitioner nor did he issue any certificate in support of his sufferings as freedom fighter which proved beyond doubt that the certificate issued by the Petitioner in the name of Sri P.K. Sengupta was a forged document. 5. IN W.P. (C) No. 277 OF 1999 The Petitioner in this case claimed that he suffered imprisonment for ten months in the year 1942 in Dhaka Jail and in support of this claim, he submitted only a certificate issued by the SDO, Sadar. He could not furnish any other document. Though a provisional pension was sanctioned in his favour, but later he was requested to produce Jail Certificate or Co-Prisoner's Certificate as per the Scheme and till such production, his provisional pension was suspended. His claim could not be substantiated by any evidence and so the Review Committee did not recommend his case. However, the Petitioner failed to produce such documents leading to cancellation of his provisional pension. 6. IN W.P. (C) No. 278 OF 1999 The Petitioner's case in this writ petition is similar to the proceeding one who claimed pension under the Scheme only on the basis of a certificate issued by the SDO, Sadar. He could furnish no other document. However, the Petitioner failed to produce such documents leading to cancellation of his provisional pension. 6. IN W.P. (C) No. 278 OF 1999 The Petitioner's case in this writ petition is similar to the proceeding one who claimed pension under the Scheme only on the basis of a certificate issued by the SDO, Sadar. He could furnish no other document. Though provisional pension was sanctioned in his favour, he was later asked to produce Prison Certificate or co-prisoner's certificate and till such production, the provisional pension was suspended. His claim did not find support from any evidence and so the Committee did not recommend his case. As he also failed to produce the required documents under the Scheme, the provisional pension was cancelled. 7. IN W.P. (C) No. 520 OF 1999 The Petitioner in this case is the wife of late Harendra Nath Roy. She claimed that her husband was sanctioned pension under the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme which was later suspended and cancelled because of failure to produce Prison's Certificate or Co-Prisoner's Certificate. This claim was under the Scheme of 1980, which required the claimant to produce documentary evidence. Those document were not furnished. 8. Similar is the case in W.P.(C) No. 276 of 99, W.P.(C) No. 188 of 99, W.P.(C) No. 173 of 99, W.P.(C) No. 282 of 99, W.P.(C) No. 281 of 99 and W.P.(C) No. 172 of 99 in which the wives have claimed pension under the Scheme on the basis of certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) recognizing their husbands as freedom fighters. Initially, on the basis of the claim, a provisional pension was sanctioned which was later suspended and cancelled because of their failure to produce either Prison's Certificate or Co-Prisoner's Certificate. In W.P.(C) No. 177 of 99, the Petitioners are the children of freedom fighter. They claimed that their father had suffered imprisonment of six months and in support of the claim, they filed SDO's certificate. They could not produce Jail Certificate or Co-Prisoner's Certificate and this failure resulted in cancellation of the provisional pension. 9. I have heard Mr. A.L. Saha, learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. K. Bhattachaijee, learned Sr. CGSC for the Respondent Union of India and Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned Counsel for the Respondent State of Tripura. 10. They could not produce Jail Certificate or Co-Prisoner's Certificate and this failure resulted in cancellation of the provisional pension. 9. I have heard Mr. A.L. Saha, learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. K. Bhattachaijee, learned Sr. CGSC for the Respondent Union of India and Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned Counsel for the Respondent State of Tripura. 10. The main argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that the cancellation of pension without any enquiry is bad in law. In support of this document, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Dhirendra Roy v. Union of India, reported in (1998) 4 GLT 416. But there is no dispute that the pension sanctioned by the Respondent was only provisional which was subject to verification before granting pension in final form under the said Scheme. As no pension was finally sanctioned in favour of the Petitioners, it did not confer any right on them requiring a detailed enquiry before cancellation. In fact the sanction of provisional pension was only an interim measure in the process of considering the claim of the Petitioners under the Scheme. Such claims definitely required to be verified by the Committee constituted for this purpose. Certain documents like Prison certificate, or Co-Prisoner's Certificate were necessary for expeditious disposal under 1972 Scheme. Scheme of 1980 required the claimant to furnish those documents compulsory. The Petitioners failed to produce any document and based their claims only on the certificate from the SDO or some other persons who could not say about the period or date when the Petitioners had actually been imprisoned making it impossible to verify the claim from the Prison's records. As per the Scheme, such persons were not competent to issue such certificate. It would further appear that after the provisional pension was sanctioned, the Respondents directed the Petitioners to submit the relevant documents which were necessary to support the claim of imprisonment under the Scheme and till that time, the provisional pension was suspended. Therefore, it cannot be said that no opportunity was given to the Petitioners to substantiate their claim for pension under the Scheme. Admittedly, they could not submit the required document and therefore, there was left nothing more for conducting a detailed enquiry for giving them more opportunities to prove their claims. Therefore, it cannot be said that no opportunity was given to the Petitioners to substantiate their claim for pension under the Scheme. Admittedly, they could not submit the required document and therefore, there was left nothing more for conducting a detailed enquiry for giving them more opportunities to prove their claims. The process of considering the claim of pension under the Scheme started when the Petitioners filed prayers claiming imprisonment in connection with their participation in the freedom struggle and enclosing a certificate from SDO and other persons some of whom claimed to be the freedom fighters. Pending verification of the claim and genuineness of the documents, a provisional pension was sanctioned which in no way closed the process or conferred any right on them, particularly, because the process of considering their claim did not take a final shape. Only when the documents filed by them were not found reliable as per the scheme, they were given opportunity to submit the required documents such as per Prison's Certificate or Co-Prisoner's Certificate and when in the long run they failed to produce such certificates, the Respondents had no other alternative but to cancel the provisional pension. Therefore, I find no scope for further enquiry on the part of the Respondents once the Petitioners failed to prove their eligibility regarding their imprisonment for a period of six months which was sine qua non under the Scheme of 1980 and necessary for expeditious consideration under the Scheme of 1972 for granting pension under the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme. There is no denying of fact that the Scheme of 1972 or of 1980 provided that the prescribed form duly filled in along with an affidavit in support thereof was the requirement for making application by the eligible persons. However, for expeditious disposal of the applications, furnishing of certain documents would be highly appreciated, as indicated in the marginal note (' "procedure'') of the Scheme of 1972 which reproduced below: It will lead to expeditious finalization of the cases if the applicants also furnish the documents shown against each category detailed below: (i) Certificates from jail authorities or State Government or the District Magistrate. (ii) Where the certificate of imprisonment are not available due to records being destroyed etc. (ii) Where the certificate of imprisonment are not available due to records being destroyed etc. an affidavit by the applicant about his imprisonment supported by a certificate from an MP or a Member of the State Legislature or an ex-MP or an ex- MLA who had been in Jail with him specifying the period of imprisonment would be accepted. (iii) If a freedom fighter who suffered imprisonment in areas now forming part of the Pakistan and Bangladesh is unable to furnish certificates, he may send an affidavit in support of his imprisonment, along with a certificate from an MP or a Member of the State Legislature or an ex-MP or an ex-MLA who had been in Jail with him. 11. Admittedly, for scrutiny of the Petitioners seeking pension under the Scheme, a Review Committee was constituted with the renowned and veteran freedom fighters and that Committee made scrutiny of all the claims of the Petitioners. Another Review Committee was constituted under the State Government, which again considered the cases of the Petitioners. The claims of the applicants who could not furnish Prison's Certificate or Co-Prisoner's Certificate were undoubtedly verified by the Review Committees who did not find their cases genuine and accordingly refused to recommend. Therefore, it is not the case that only for non-furnishing of Prison's Certificate or Co-Prisoner's Certificate, the claims were turned down. Only in the absence of non-availability of any official record about their imprisonment of Scheme provided for alternative route to consider the claims on the basis of the certificate from co-prisoner who is or was an MP or an MLA. If for the moment we accept the proposition that only a form duly filled in and an affidavit in support thereof would be enough for granting pension under the Scheme, as canvassed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. It would undoubtedly open a floodgate and every person of certain age compatible with the period of freedom movement can claim and get the pension under the Scheme by simply filing an application and swearing an affidavit. There is no doubt that a form and an affidavit is the primary requirement for making an application for the pension. But mere filing of such application can never be the only basis for granting pension. There is no doubt that a form and an affidavit is the primary requirement for making an application for the pension. But mere filing of such application can never be the only basis for granting pension. All such claims in prescribed form supported by an affidavit has to be verified with reference to the official records by the Review Committee duly constituted and in the absence of any official records, a co-prisoner's certificate would also be the basis for verification. I am not prepared to accept the proposition as advanced by Mr. Saha that only a form and an affidavit without any support from official records, Prison's Certificate or Co-Prisoner's Certificate would; be enough for granting pension under the Scheme. 12. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners relied on several decisions of the Supreme Court as well as Gauhati High Court in support of his contention. As I have already discussed, every case can be distinguished on the basis of its factual situation. As in the case of Dhirendra Chandra Roy (supra) and in the case of Birendra Chandra Saha relied upon in Dhirendra Chandra Roy's case, the Union of India did not file any affidavit-in-opposition. These cases were decided ex parte on the basis of the certificates submitted by the Petitioners. Even while deciding the claim of Dhirendra Chandra Roy (supra), the learned Single Judge noticed that the Petitioners furnished along with the form and affidavit a certificate from SDO and another certificate from a former Finance Minister of Tripura specifically stating that he was imprisoned in Dhaka Jail in 1941 for 10 months. As the Finance Minister was certainly an ex-MLA, therefore, such certificate fulfilled the requirement of the Scheme for expeditious disposal of the claim in the absence of other official records. 13. In Shanti Bala Bhattacharjee v. Union of India in W.P.(C) No. 249 of 2001 referred to by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, the judgment was delivered on 02-02-02 wherein the learned Single Judge proceeded to decide the claim in the absence of any counter affidavit from the Union of India. In that case also, two certificates were produced by the Petitioner of which one was issued by Sri Krishnadas Bhattacharjee, a former minister of Tripura. The minister being an MLA or an ex-MLA, the requirement of the Scheme was undoubtedly fulfilled. In that case also, two certificates were produced by the Petitioner of which one was issued by Sri Krishnadas Bhattacharjee, a former minister of Tripura. The minister being an MLA or an ex-MLA, the requirement of the Scheme was undoubtedly fulfilled. While allowing the petition, the learned Single Judge made it clear that in case the certificates were found to be fake or forged, the authorities after conducting an investigation may stop the pension. 14. learned Counsel placed reliance emphatically on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gurdial Singh v. Union of India, reported in (2001) 8 SCC 8 . While explaining the object of the Scheme, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the Scheme was to honour and to mitigate the sufferings of those who had given their all for the country and as such a liberal and not a technical approach is required to be followed while determining the merits of the case of a person seeking pension under the Scheme. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that it should not be forgotten that the persons intended to be covered by the Scheme had suffered for the country about half a century back and had not expected to be rewarded for the imprisonment suffered by them. Once the country had decided to honour such freedom fighters, the bureaucrats entrusted with the job of examining the cases of such freedom fighters are expected to keep in mind the purpose and object of the Scheme. The case of the claimants is required to be determined on the basis of the probabilities and not on the touchstone of the test of beyond reasonable doubt. 15. The Scheme as envisaged in 1972 and 1980 have enough flexibilities for the bureaucrats examining the claims to determine on the basis of preponderance of probability. For this purpose, a Review Committee was constituted consisting of the freedom fighters to verify the claims of the applicants and when there is no official record in support of the claim of imprisonment, the Scheme provided to determine the claim on the basis of coprisoner's certificate only. For this purpose, a Review Committee was constituted consisting of the freedom fighters to verify the claims of the applicants and when there is no official record in support of the claim of imprisonment, the Scheme provided to determine the claim on the basis of coprisoner's certificate only. Admitting that such certificates are only for the purpose of expediting the grant of pension under the Scheme of 1972 it is to be noticed at the same time that Review Committees were not precluded from considering the claims independent of the aforesaid documents required by the Scheme for the purpose of expeditious determination. The factual situation in aforesaid cases is that neither the Review Committee constituted by the Government nor the Review Committee constituted under the direction of the Court did recommend the Petitioners for pension as they did not find the claims genuine. It is not possible for the Writ Court to sit in appeal, re- examine, re-verify and replace the findings of the Review Committee on the basis of the documents submitted by the Petitioners. 16. In W.P. (C) No. 172 of 99, C.R. No. 194 of 98, W.P. (C) No. 188 of 99, W.P. (C) No. 277 of 99, W.P. (C) No. 278 of 99, W.P. (C) No. 281 of 99 and W.P. (C) No. 282 of 99, both the Union of India and State of Tripura have filed counter affidavit contending that the claims of the Petitioners were not found genuine by the Review Committee and only after giving reasonable opportunity of showing cause the provisional pension was then cancelled. In W.P. (C) No. 177 of 99, W.P. (C) No. 518 of 99 and W.P. (C) No. 520 of 99, the Union of India has not filed any counter affidavit. But the claims have been contested by the Respondent No. 2 State of Tripura who did not recommend the claims of the Petitioners on the ground that those were not found genuine by the Review Committee on verification. In W.P. (C) No. 173 of 99 and C.R. No. 235 of 98, neither the Union of India nor the State of Tripura have filed counter affidavit. Even in the absence of any counter affidavit by the Respondents, it is not possible to adjudicate her claim on the basis of the petition and other unreliable documents only. 17. In W.P. (C) No. 173 of 99 and C.R. No. 235 of 98, neither the Union of India nor the State of Tripura have filed counter affidavit. Even in the absence of any counter affidavit by the Respondents, it is not possible to adjudicate her claim on the basis of the petition and other unreliable documents only. 17. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I reiterate that in all the aforesaid cases, official records or relevant documents in support of the claim of imprisonment in connection with the freedom struggle were not available and as such the Review Committee as well as the Respondents who did not find their claims genuine suspended and then cancelled the provisional pension very rightly after giving reasonable opportunity of producing the required documents. There was, therefore, no denial of natural justice. As I have already observed that in two cases, where the Respondents have not filed any counter affidavit, the Petitioners have not filed any document to substantiate their claim and as such these two cases are also of no merit. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussions, all the writ petitions are devoid of merit and stand dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost. Petitions dismissed