ORDER :

Ruma Pal, J.

Leave granted.

2. The only issue in this case relates to the question of limitation in relation to the respondent's assertion of her right to pension under the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme. The respondent's husband had claimed that he was a freedom fighter. He applied for grant of pension under the Scheme. His application was rejected in 1973 on two grounds (1) that he had not undergone imprisonment for the period of six months, and (2) his annual income was more than Rs. 5000. The respondent's husband did not choose to challenge this order till the date of his death twenty years later, in 1993. In 1995 the respondent filed a suit in which she had claimed the pension. Her claim was decreed together with 18% interest. The appellant's appeal from the decree was dismissed on the ground that the loss of pension is a recurring loss and that the cause of action was a continuing one.

3. The High Court erred in holding that the cause of action was a recurring one. A right to the pension should be asserted within the period of limitation. The right having been established, the right to receive the pension would then be a continuing one. The right not having been establis