Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 56 (MAN)

Tongkhulun Kuki v. Union of India

2019-09-04

K.H.NOBIN SINGH

body2019
JUDGMENT : K.H. NOBIN SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri Serto T. Kom, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners; Shri S. Samarjeet, learned CGC appearing for the Union of India and Shri Niranjan Sanasam, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondent. 2. By the instant writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside the letters dated 26-07-2018 and 23-02-2009 issued by the Union of India. 3.1. Facts and circumstances as narrated in the writ petition, are that during the Second World War, Shri Netaji Subash Chandra Bose formed the Indian National Army (INA) to fight against the British with the help of Japanese forces for which he made an appeal to the people of India and more specifically to the Manipuris in the following words - “Give me Blood and I will give you Freedom” and “Challo Delhi” and “Do or Die” Many Manipuris responded to the call of Netaji Subash Chandra Bose and that was the time when the petitioners including the husband of the petitioner No. 3, joined the INA. After the Second World War was over, the INA's movement for freedom also came to an end with the result that the petitioners including the husband of the petitioner No. 3 were arrested and detained in jail, for which they were recognized by the Government of India and the Copper Plate Citation namely, Tamarapatara were issued to them on 15-08-1972 by the then Prime Minister of India, (Late) Smt. Indira Gandhi. 3.2. In recognition of the contribution of the freedom fighters, the Government of India framed a pension scheme known as Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972 which was later on renamed as Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. The petitioners including the husband of the petitioner No. 3 were allowed to enjoy the benefits under the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme but were later cancelled on the ground that the genuineness of the certificates of imprisonment submitted by them was found to be doubtful. The petitioners including the husband of the petitioner No. 3 were allowed to enjoy the benefits under the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme but were later cancelled on the ground that the genuineness of the certificates of imprisonment submitted by them was found to be doubtful. Various writ petitions came to be filed questioning the cancellation of the benefits under the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, some of which are writ petitions being WP (C) No. 492 of 1012 and WP (C) No. 54 of 2013 which were disposed of by a common judgment and order dated 11-03-2015 passed by this Court and the operative directions of which read as under:- “With the above observations, both the writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:- (a) As regard the Writ Petition being 1/1/. P. (C) No. 492 of 2012, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the Government of India shall constitute a Committee within a period of three months as from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order, through the Govt. of Manipur to enquire into whether the petitioners/Husbands of some of the petitioners (being ST) had suffered imprisonment of at least three months. Keeping in mind the above observations and to take appropriate decisions within a month from the date of receipt of the report submitted by the said Committee. (b) As regards the Writ Petitions being 1/1/. P. (C) No. 54 of 2013, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the Govt. of India shall reconsidered the case of the petitioner's husband (being ST) who had admittedly undergone imprisonment for more than three months as an under trial and issued appropriate order for restoration of his pension within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order.” In compliance with the said directions of this Court, the Ministry of Home Affairs (FFR Division), Government of India issued two orders which were issued in respect of 14 (fourteen) petitioners and also 20 (twenty) petitioners therein respectively and the operative portions of the order issued in respect fourteen petitioners read as under:- “3. The Committee had during the visit to Manipur inspected the jail records produced and observed in respect of 14 persons whose particulars are mentioned below, that the details (primary evidence) of the 14 petitioners/husbands of some of the petitioners have not been found in the Under Trial/Convict Register in the Central Jail, Manipur, Imphal. The Committee also finds the findings in the letter dated 28/04/2015 of the then Superintendent, Manipur Central Jail, Imphal to be genuinely true. 8. As per the provisions of the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Yojana “In case records of the relevant period are not available, a nonavailability of records certificate (NARC) form the concerned State/Union Territory administration along with 2 Co-prisoner Certificates (CPC) from freedom fighters who have proven jail sufferings of minimum 1 year and who were with the applicant in the jail. In case the certifier happens to the sitting or Ex. M.P./M.L.A. only one certificate in place of the two is required. 9. In this regard, you are requested to provide a valid NARC as per the SSS Yojana and Co-prisoner Certificates (CPC) as mentioned above in every individual 14 cases whose particulars are mentioned above in every individual 14 cases whose particulars are mentioned above, within 8 weeks from the date of issuing this letter, for further examination of the claims of these petitioners.” And, in respect of 20 (twenty) petitioners therein, the operative portion of the order reads as under:- “That by the above mentioned order dated 26/07/2017, the Govt. of India has decided that the 20 Freedom Fighters are not found to be genuine for restoration of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension as their names are either found to be tampered or are entered in different ink. The case of the present petitioners are included in the above mentioned category and their names are found at SI. No. 1, 10 and 16.” Being aggrieved by the said orders and others, the instant writ petition has been filed on the inter-alia grounds that the same are illegal and deserve to be quashed and set aside. 4. An affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the respondent No. 1 has been filed wherein it has been stated that the petitioners were recipients of pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme which were granted in the year 1980. 4. An affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the respondent No. 1 has been filed wherein it has been stated that the petitioners were recipients of pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme which were granted in the year 1980. But during the course of time, the Vigilance Department, Government of Manipur received some anonymous complaint that the people who were receiving the pension, were not eligible. The Vigilance Department conducted an enquiry as to whether imprisonment certificates issued by the various jailors, Manipur Central Jail were genuine or not. During the course of enquiry, the Vigilance Department found that out of 156 accepted cases of pensioners, expect in respect of 5 (five) prisoners, 35 (thirty five) cases were found to be false claims and in respect of the remaining 116 cases, no definite conclusion could be arrived at as the records of the period were not traceable. The State Government after receiving the said report stopped the pension and issued show cause notice including the petitioners. On receipt of the replies from the concerned pensioners, the Union of India directed the State Government to conduct re-verification of Imprisonment Certificates and after the re-verification was over, the State Government submitted the reports stating that the persons to whom the Imprisonment Certificates had been issued, were found to be genuine and accordingly, the earlier reports were withdrawn. The said reports were submitted to the Union of India on 02-07-1999. After receiving the said reports, the Union of India requested the Government of Manipur to hold a fresh enquiry. The Government of Manipur submitted its report stating that the cases of 35 (thirty five) pensioners were found to be genuine, while the State Government showed its inability to confirm the genuineness of 116 cases in the year 2001. The Government of India vide its letter dated 23-02-2009 informed the State Government that on perusal of the records and contrary stands taken by the Vigilance Department, Government of Manipur, the pension which was granted and later cancelled, could not be restored. The petitioners with 33 (thirty three) others filed a writ petition before this court which was disposed of with the direction that a Committee be constituted to inquire into the matter and the report on the status of the petitioners be submitted. The said Committee had submitted a report dated 26-08-2016 wherein the detailed observations had been made regarding all the petitioners. The said Committee had submitted a report dated 26-08-2016 wherein the detailed observations had been made regarding all the petitioners. The Union of India taking into account the observations made therein, issued an order dated 26-07-2017 stating that the claims of the petitioners and other had been found to be not genuine and therefore, their pensions were not restored. On the basis of the said report of the Committee dated 26-08-2016, it is proven that the petitioners were never eligible for the pension, since they were never the freedom fighters. Their misrepresentations had disrespected to those fighters, who in reality fought the battle for their motherland. The jail certificates were found to be tampered. During the visit of Manipur, it inspected the jail records produced and observed that there were overwriting, use of two inks for entry in respect of the same persons, fudging and the registers were found to be torn and tattered state and hence, the genuineness of the details was seriously doubted. On the basis of the said observations, one can end upto the conclusion that the petitioners misrepresented and befooled the authorities for many years and the petitioners had misrepresented in order to obtain jail certificates. Since the petitioners had committed fraud, not only on the government authorities but also to all those who fought or gave their lives for such a noble cause. The decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Chaudhary Nayak (Dea by LR) and Others, Civil Appeal No. 6818-6819 of 2010 has been relied upon by the counsel appearing for the petitioners to contend that the grant of freedom fighters pension to bogus claimants producing false and fabricated documents, is as bad as genuine freedom fighters being denied the pension. While denying the averments made in the writ petition, it has been stated that the contention of the petitioners that the original records of imprisonment of freedom fighters were destroyed due to fire incident which occurred in 1987-88 and that the pension should be granted to them held no ground. The Union of India had time and again given opportunity to the petitioners to prove their claim by submitting secondary evidence. Despite a number of opportunities being given by this Court, the State of Manipur has failed to file its affidavit in the matter. 5. The Union of India had time and again given opportunity to the petitioners to prove their claim by submitting secondary evidence. Despite a number of opportunities being given by this Court, the State of Manipur has failed to file its affidavit in the matter. 5. It has been submitted by Shri Serto T Kom, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the Union of India had cancelled the pension granted to the petitioners and the husband of the petitioner No. 3 without application of mind for the reason that the State Government way back in the year, 2008 had confirmed that the original records of imprisonment of freedom fighters were destroyed in a fire incident which occurred in 1987-88. It has further been submitted that the Union of India has failed to appreciate the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as regards the standard of proof to be applied for grant of pension to the freedom fighters. Assuming for the sake of argument that the documents were found to have been tampered, it is nowhere mentioned in the report of the Committee that it could be attributed to the petitioners. On the other hand, Shri S. Samarjeet, learned CGC has submitted that the Committee has given its findings that the names of the petitioners and the husband of the petitioner No. 3 were tampered and that since the disputed questions of fact have arisen, this Court may not interfere with the findings of the Committee. 6. As regards the laudable objective behind the scheme and the principle to be followed while considering the claim for grant of pension to the freedom fighters, this Court, in Shri Tongkholun Kuki and Others vs. Union of India and Others, WP (C) No. 492 of 2012, had observed as under: “(7) The laudable objective behind the said scheme and the manner in which the claims are to be considered have been succinctly brought out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurdial Singh vs. Union of India, (2001) 8 SCC 8 , the paragraphs 6 & 7 of which are given as under: “6. The Scheme was introduced with the object of providing grant of pension to living freedom fighters and their families and to the families of martyrs. The Scheme was introduced with the object of providing grant of pension to living freedom fighters and their families and to the families of martyrs. It has to be kept in mind that millions of masses of this country had participated in the freedom struggle without any expectation of grant of any scheme at the relevant time. It has also to be kept in mind that in the partition of the country most of the citizens who suffered imprisonment were handicapped to get the relevant record from the jails where they had suffered imprisonment. The problem of getting the record from a foreign country is very cumbersome and expensive. Keeping object of the Scheme, the authorities concerned are required that in appreciating the Scheme for the benefit of freedom fighters a rational and not a technical approach is required to be adopted. It has also to be kept in mind that the claimants the Scheme are supposed to be such persons who had given the best part of their life for the country.” “7. The standard of proof required in such cases is not such standard which is required in a criminal case or in a case adjudicated upon rival contentions or evidence of the parties. As the object of the Scheme is to honour and to mitigate the sufferings of those who had given their all for the country, 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. 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 has decided to honour such freedom fighters, the 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. Once the country has decided to honour such freedom fighters, the 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 under this Scheme is required to be determined on the basis of the probabilities and not on the touchstone of the test of 'beyond reasonable doubt' Once on the basis of the evidence it is probabilised that the claimant has suffered imprisonment for the cause of the country and during the freedom struggle, a presumption is required to be drawn in his favour unless the same is rebutted by cogent, reasonable and reliable evidence. (8) While rendering its judgment and order in Gurdial Singh case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to its earlier judgment and order passed in the case of Mukund Lal Bhandari vs. Union of India, 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 2 wherein it observed: “9. The object in making the said relaxation was not to reward or compensate the sacrifices made in the freedom struggle. The object was to honour and where it was necessary, also to mitigate the sufferings of those who had given their all for the country in the hour of its need. In fact, many of those who do not have sufficient income to maintain themselves refuse to take benefit of it, since they consider it as an affront to the sense of patriotism with which they plunged in the Freedom Struggle The spirit of the Scheme being both to assist and honour the needy and acknowledge the valuable sacrifices made, it would be contrary to its spirit to convert it into some kind of a programme of 33.03.15 compensation. Yet that may be the result if the benefit is directed to be given retrospectively whatever the date the application is made. The Scheme should retain its high objective with which it was motivated. It should not further be forgotten that now its benefit is made available irrespective of the income limit. Secondly, and this is equally important to note, since we are by this decision-making the benefit of the Scheme available irrespective of the date on which the application is made, it would not be advisable to extend the benefit retrospectively. It should not further be forgotten that now its benefit is made available irrespective of the income limit. Secondly, and this is equally important to note, since we are by this decision-making the benefit of the Scheme available irrespective of the date on which the application is made, it would not be advisable to extend the benefit retrospectively. Lastly, the pension under the present Scheme is not the only benefit made available to the freedom fighters or their dependents. The preference in employment, allotment of accommodation and in admission to schools and colleges to their kith and kin etc. are also the other benefits which have been made available to them for quite sometime now.” (9) After discussing the earlier judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharastra and Another vs. Namdeo and Others, (2013) 14 SCC 225 has summed up the as under legal propositions as under: “(a) The claims of the freedom fighter are to be dealt with, with sympathy. (b) The authorities are not to go by the test of “beyond reasonable doubt” and standard of proof based this principle has to be discarded. (c) On the contrary, the principle of probability is to be applied and eschewing the technicalities, the approach should be to uphold the entitlement. (d) When scheme itself mentions the documents which are required to be produced by the applicant, normally those documents need to be produced to prove the claim. (e) The High Court exercising writ jurisdiction does not sit in judgment over the decision of the State Government like an appellate authority. The order of the State Government is to be examined applying the parameters of judicial review which are available in examining the validity of such orders. (f) Even if the order is found to be perverse or flawed, the High Court can, at the most, remit back to the State Government to reconsider the case.” 7. From the above decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is seen that the principle to be followed while considering the claim for grant of pension to the freedom fighters is well settled and that there can be no any dispute from any of the parties in that regard. From the above decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is seen that the principle to be followed while considering the claim for grant of pension to the freedom fighters is well settled and that there can be no any dispute from any of the parties in that regard. Shri S. Samajeet, learned CGC has emphasized that the issue involved herein is covered by the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa vs. Choudhury Nayak case (supra) wherein Shri Choudhury Nayak claimed that he was convicted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhadrak and was sentenced to seven months imprisonment. To claim his pension, he submitted his application but he was asked to produce some acceptable proof of imprisonment and accordingly, he produced a certified copy of the entries made on 12-10-1943 in the criminal case register. Accepting the said document as proof of the petitioner having undergone imprisonment, he was sanctioned freedom fighters' pension by the Union of India. A PIL came to be filed alleging that he was drawing freedom fighter's pension by producing fake and fabricated documents. Show causes were issued to him by both the State Government and the Union of India. After considering the explanation given by him, the Union of India cancelled the freedom fighter's pension given to him. On the cancellation order being challenged, the Hon'ble High Court allowed the writ petition. Appeals by way of special leave, were preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the State Government and the Union of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that when false claims come to the notice of the Central Government, it is bound to take action. Any complacency on the part of the Government in taking action against bogus claims under any scheme would encourage bogus claims under all schemes, by undeserving candidates who are well connected and influential. False claimants walking away with the benefits meant for genuine and deserving candidates has become the bane of several welfare schemes. Any complacency on the part of the Government in taking action against bogus claims under any scheme would encourage bogus claims under all schemes, by undeserving candidates who are well connected and influential. False claimants walking away with the benefits meant for genuine and deserving candidates has become the bane of several welfare schemes. The Hon'ble Supreme Court summarized its earlier decisions on the object relating to the freedom fighter's pension scheme and indicated what should be the approach of the authorities in dealing with the applications under the scheme but the same are not reproduced herein because the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the subsequent decision rendered in State of Maharastra and Another vs. Namdeo, has summarised the legal propositions which have been reproduced hereinabove. Para 9 thereof read as under: “9. Grant of freedom fighters' pension to bogus claimants producing false and fabricated documents is as bad as genuine freedom fighters being denied pension. The only way to respect the sacrifices of freedom fighters is to ensure that only genuine freedom fighters get the pension. This means that the Government should weed out false and fabricated claims and cancel the grant when the bogus nature of the claim comes to light. In Union of India vs. Avtar Singh, 2006 (6) SCC 493 : AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 1831 : 2006 AIR SCW 3803, this Court therefore cautioned: “The genuine freedom fighters deserved to be treated with reverence, respect and honour. But at the same time it cannot be lost sight of that people who had no role to play in the freedom struggle should not be permitted to benefit from the liberal approach required to be adopted in the case of the freedom fighters, most of whom in the normal course are septuagenarians and octogenarians.” We will have to examine allegations of fabrication of the claim in this case, keeping the aforesaid principles in view.” 8. Keeping in mind the principles as aforesaid, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the allegations of fabrication of claim and came to the conclusion that his claim was based on false and fabricated documents. Accordingly, the order of the High Court was set aside with the direction that since the petitioner therein has died, there shall be no recovery of any amount already paid to him from his widow or any legal heirs. Accordingly, the order of the High Court was set aside with the direction that since the petitioner therein has died, there shall be no recovery of any amount already paid to him from his widow or any legal heirs. The facts of that case are not exactly the same but are similar to that of the present case. In the present case, the petitioners and the husband of the petitioner No. 3 were granted freedom fighter's pension on the basis of the documents produced by them. On the anonymous complaints, the Vigilance Department, Government of Manipur made an enquiry into it and made a finding that out of 156 cases, only 5 had undergone imprisonment. The 35 cases were found to be false claims while no definite conclusion could be arrived at in respect of 116 cases as the records were not traceable. On the strength of the said report, the State Government suspended the grant of pension and issued show cause notice. On receipt of the replies filed by them, the Union of India directed the State Government to conduct re-verification of imprisonment certificates. After the re-verification was over, the State Government informed the Union of India that since the persons to whom the imprisonment certificates had been issued, were found genuine, the earlier reports were withdrawn. The Union of India, being not satisfied with the report of re-verification, requested the State Government to hold a fresh enquiry into the genuineness of the imprisonment certificates. On receipt of a report of the enquiry, the Union of India sought a clarification from the State Government in respect of 116 cases with respect to whom the State Government was unable to confirm the genuineness. Accordingly, the Union of India vide its letter dated 23-02-2009 informed the State Government that since all the reports were conflicting and contradictory, the pensions granted in favour of the petitioners therein including the petitioners herein but cancelled later, were not restored. A writ petition being WP (C) No. 492 of 2012 came to be filed by some pensioners including the petitioners which was disposed of on 11-03-2015 with the direction that a Committee be constituted to look into it. A writ petition being WP (C) No. 492 of 2012 came to be filed by some pensioners including the petitioners which was disposed of on 11-03-2015 with the direction that a Committee be constituted to look into it. The Committee, during the course of its enquiry, visited the concerned jail and thereafter, submitted its report, the findings of which read as under: “FINDINGS: (1) The Government of Manipur has vide the aforesaid letter dated 15.04.2016, submitted ST Certificate in respect of 21 petitioners/husbands of some of the petitioners out of 33 petitioners, who had filed the said W.P. (C) No. 492 of 2012. The list of 21 persons and copy of ST Certificate is given at Annexure-2 enclosed. The Committee finds discrepancies in the ST Certificates of the following persons:- (i) The Certificate No. ADC/KP1/1/SC-ST/2014/97 dated 16/10/2015 has been issued in the name of Kumari Dimhat Kuki daughter of Late Eljalet Kuki, whereas in the details of family members, Dimhat Kuki is shown as W/o. late Seikhomang Kuki. It is not clear as to whether Dimhat Kumari daughter of Late Eljalet Kuki and Dimhat Kuki, W/o. Late Seikhomang Kuki is one and the same person. (ii) The Certificate No. DC/(CCP)/Jdl/(Tribe)/2015/B-506 dated 01.10.2015 has been issued in the name of Smt. Deineng Haokip, W/o. Henjakhup Haokip. Henjakhup S/o. Sumsa of Mongjam is shown in the Under trial Register maintained in Manipur Central Jail, Imphal. It is not clear whether Henjakhup Haokip and Henjakhup is one and the same person. (iii) The Certificate No. DC(CCP)/Jdl/(Tribe)/2013/27 dated 11.09.2015 has been issued in the name of Shri Jamsei Haokip S/o. Late Tongkhosei Haokip of Mill Tuibuong Khopi Veng, whereas the petitioner's name in W.P. No. 492/2012 is Jamsei Kuki S/o. Tongkhsei Kuki of Maku Village. It is not clear whether Jamsei Haokip and Jamsei Kuki is one and the same person. (iv) The Certificate No. ADC/KPI/1/SC-ST/2014/26 dated 01.10.2015 has been issued in the name of Kumari Seikhonem Kuki, D/o late Vumjalet Kuki whereas the petitioner's name in W.P. No. 492/2012 is Shekhonem, W/o. late Otkhopao Kuki s/o. late Seikhojang. It is not clear whether Jamsei Haokip and Jamsei Kuki is one and the same person. (iv) The Certificate No. ADC/KPI/1/SC-ST/2014/26 dated 01.10.2015 has been issued in the name of Kumari Seikhonem Kuki, D/o late Vumjalet Kuki whereas the petitioner's name in W.P. No. 492/2012 is Shekhonem, W/o. late Otkhopao Kuki s/o. late Seikhojang. It is not clear whether Kumari Seikhonem Kuki, D/o late Vumjalet Kuki and Shekhonem is one and the same person (2) The Superintendent, Manipur Central Jail, Imphal, has vide Letter No. B-7/12/04-MCJ: dated 27.04.2015 furnished list containing details of entries of admission/release in respect of 20 petitioners and also list of 14 petitioners/husbands of some of the petitioners whose details have not been found in the UT/Convict Register. A copy of the said letter dated 27.04.2015 is placed as Annexure-3 enclosed. (3) The Superintendent, Manipur Central Jail, Imphal, has vide Letter No. B-4/12/04-MCJ: dated 28.07.2015 addressed to the Additional Director General of Police (Prisons), Manipur informed that as per report submitted by that Office to the Inspector General of Prisons, Manipur vide Letter No. 12/18/82-MCJ dated 05/02/2002, entries in respect of those 20 petitioners found in the register were all tempered one. (4) The Committee had during the visit to Manipur inspected the jail records produced and observed that there were overwriting, use of two inks for entry in respect of the same persons, fudging and the registers were found to be in torn and tattered state and hence the genuineness of the details is seriously doubted. The Committee finds the findings of the then Superintendent Manipur Central Jail, Imphal to be genuine rue. A Statement containing details of entries of jail records and Committee's findings in respect of each petitioner is placed opposite in Annexure-4. (5) The Committee also bring in to the notice of Competent Authority that the name of Shri M. Salhlutchung Kom late husband of Smt. M. Ringneikip, the petitioner in W.P. No. 54 of 2012, was not found in the Jail Records as per the said letter No. B-7/12/04-MCJ: dated 28.04.2015 of Superintendent, Manipur Central Jail, Imphal. The Section concerned therefore is required to re-examine the case for appropriate course of action. (M.K. Gupta) Member (Niranjan Lal) Member.” 9. The validity and correctness of the report of the Committee is not the subject matter in issue herein. The Section concerned therefore is required to re-examine the case for appropriate course of action. (M.K. Gupta) Member (Niranjan Lal) Member.” 9. The validity and correctness of the report of the Committee is not the subject matter in issue herein. It may be noted that the Committee was constituted pursuant to the order dated 11-03-2015 passed by this Court and after the enquiry having been held, it submitted its report. It has been vehemently submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that while considering the application, along with the documents annexed therewith, the principle of probability ought to be applied and eschewing the technicality, the approach should be to uphold the entitlement. His contention appears to be correct to that extent, in the sense that the test of “beyond reasonable doubt” will not apply at all. But the principle of probability will have to be applied to find out whether the claim of a person for pension is probable on the basis of the documents filed by him and if the document is found to have been tampered, the question of probability will not arise. This is exactly what has happened in the present case. The Committee has observed that when it inspected the jail records, there were overwriting, use of two inks for entry in respect of the same persons, fudging and the register was found to be torn and tattered state and hence, the genuineness of the details is seriously doubted. As long as the said report of the Committee is not assailed by anyone, it will remain as if it had attained finality. This Court cannot look into the disputed questions of fact and on top of that, this Court cannot substitute its findings to that of the Committee which had given its findings after considering all the relevant materials placed before it. Considering all these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the instant writ petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly liable to be dismissed by this Court. 10. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the instant writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, it is open to the petitioners to question the report of the Committee, if so advised, before any other forums including the Civil Court for redressal of their grievances.