ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Union of India as also the State. 2. In this writ application, the challenge is to the order dated 3rd of June 2011 as contained in Annexure-19 whereby the petitioner was found not eligible to receive Freedom Fighter Pension under the provisions of the Sawtantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme 1980. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that earlier petitioner was allowed freedom fighter pension which was withdrawn and as such, petitioner challenged the order withdrawing the payment of freedom fighter pension through a writ petition vide C.W.J.C. No. 1197 of 2011 which was disposed of with certain directions, as per order dated 14th of February 2011 as contained in Annexure-16. It is further submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid order of this court, in respect of paragraph – 11, 12 and 14 of the order dated 02.11.2010 as contained in Annexure-15, petitioner submitted his reply to the authority concerned and thereupon the impugned order dated 3rd of June 2011 as contained in Annexure-19 came to be passed. It is further submitted that the aforesaid order has been passed contrary to the provision of the scheme for grant of the freedom fighter pension and as such, it deserves to be quashed. In support of his submissions, it has been contended that the authority did not consider the documents produced by him in order to substantiate that he had underground suffering from 15th of August 1942 to 5th of December 1943 as also the date of birth which according to him was 1st of February 1931 instead of 1st of February 1934 which was taken into consideration by the authority and as such, the order dated 03.07.2011 (Annexure – 19) disallowing the freedom fighter pension and the grant of freedom fighter pension to the petitioner be directed to be restored. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India on the other hand, submits that the impugned order dated 3rd of June 2011 is passed upon considering the factual aspect of the matter on the basis of the documents under consideration. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India on the other hand, submits that the impugned order dated 3rd of June 2011 is passed upon considering the factual aspect of the matter on the basis of the documents under consideration. The authority found that the correct date of birth of the petitioner was 1st of February 1934 and not 1st of February 1931 which gets support from the admitted fact that petitioner continued to serve the department and superannuated from his service on the basis of the date of birth i.e. 1st of February 1934 without any objection. It was further submitted that no satisfactory materials were produced by the petitioner in order to substantiate his underground suffering as claimed. It is accordingly submitted that the impugned order based on the appreciation of the fact on the basis of the materials on record and as such, need not to be interfered with, as prayed for, by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the State supports the order under Challenge. 5. Upon considering the rival submissions of the parties and the respective pleadings, it would appear that the questions, as to whether petitioner had gone underground and accordingly suffered during the freedom movement between the period 15th of August 1942 to 5th of December 1943 was under consideration before the authority. As regards the date of birth, the petitioner claimed his date of birth being 1st of February 1931 whereas the authority found that the correct date of birth of the petitioner as per his service book as 1st of February 1934. Petitioner served the service of the government and accordingly superannuated on the basis of the above date of birth i.e. 1st of February 1934. On perusal of the impugned order, it would appear that the order has been passed considering the reply of the petitioner as also on appreciation of the materials on record has arrived at the factual finding. It is well settled that the writ court while exercising its jurisdiction does not sit over the order under challenge as an appellate authority. The judicial scrutiny is with respect to the decisions making process. It is apparent that the impugned order has been passed based the material on record which were found not satisfactory and arrived at certain findings of facts upon considering the materials on record. The judicial scrutiny is with respect to the decisions making process. It is apparent that the impugned order has been passed based the material on record which were found not satisfactory and arrived at certain findings of facts upon considering the materials on record. In my opinion, the issue involving serious question of disputed facts cannot be go into, as such, it does not call for any interference with the impugned order in the writ jurisdiction of this court. 6. In the result, I do not find any merit in the writ application. The same is accordingly dismissed.