Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

DISPUTED QUESTIONS OF FACTS:

12.5 The third contention of the respondents was that the petition involved highly disputed questions of facts, and therefore, this Court should not entertain the petition and drive the petitioners to the civil court and/or any other appropriate forum. The petitioners' reply is as under:
12.5A This is a very strange case where the respondents are trying to convert facts of their own records as disputed facts and then to try to defeat the legitimate claims of the petitioners -
12.6 The petition does not involve any substantial disputed questions of facts because of the facts of the petitioners, viz. their designation, their recruitment, the date of recruitment, the date of training, the number of presence each year, the payment are all from the records, correspondence and affidavits of the respondents which are on record. The respondents are really making frantic efforts to wriggle out of their records by pointing here and there some isolated facts of one or the other case, and therefore, their defence rejoinders are full of contradictions. First they say that the petitioners were never engaged on border duties and then they say that they might have been engaged on border duties for sometimes, on some occasions. Similarly, the border duties have been described by the Scheme and the petitioners are to be recruited from the border areas and now they are trying to show that border means actual line of international border and not the neighbouring areas of 5 to 10 to 15 k.ms. from the border as if the border duties are actually confined to the actual line of the international border. Similarly, when the petitioners pointed out the continuous embodiment from their records, the respondents tried to wriggle out by saying the company might be embodied but the individual guardsmen might be disembodied and even this is also not correct which is from their records. Their own records show and particularly their Scheme that during embodiment and on training, the petitioners are to be given pay scales appropriate to the corresponding ranks and rolls in the State Armed Police and thus the Scheme itself equates the petitioners with State Armed Police with different grades and yet they say with whom the petitioners can be compared. Thus, even when there are no disputed questions of facts, the respondents continue to harp on one thing about disputed questions and such disputed questions of facts are nothing but spurious and artificial.
12.7 It is the contention of the petitioners that all the facts are taken from the respondents records and affidavits and they are not disputed questions of facts but even for the sake of argument if it is assumed without conceding that there are some disputed questions of facts, that alone does not preclude this Court from exercising its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India because the policy of not entering into the disputed questions of facts is only by way of auto-limitation and not by way of constitutional prohibition. If on the basis of the pleadings of the parties with affidavits, this Court can decide the questions, this Court is not precluded from deciding and even this Court can take evidence if necessary.

CONCLUSIONS AND DIRECTIONS:

DISPUTED QUESTION OF FACT:

16. Before I deal with the contention of the petitioners, the respondents have contended that the petition requires to be rejected on the ground that the petition raises disputed question of facts. I will first dispose of the said contention of the respondents before I decide the merits of the matter.

17 The respondents have broadly contended that the petition raises highly disputed questions of fact and this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not enter into the disputed questions of fact and the petitioners have to go to Civil Court or any other appropriate forum if they want.