The court emphasized the importance of the review applicant's awareness of her rights and the concept of continuing wrong in the context of entitlement to pensionary benefits. The court also highlighted the application of limitation under the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.

JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. Review applicant seeks review of the order dated August 25, 2023 by which WP.ST 149 of 2019 was disposed of.

2. Learned advocate appearing for the review applicant submits that, the review applicant was granted compassionate appointment on October 1, 1999. Review applicant superannuated in 2007. Review applicant was entitled to compassionate appointment much prior to 1999 and, therefore, review applicant was entitled to notional benefit at least from 1995. On grant such notional benefit, review applicant will come within the zone of consideration for pension, which she was denied due to her inadequate period of service, counting the period of her service from October 1999 till her superannuation in 2007.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the review applicant submits that, the learned Tribunal erred in not considering the fact, that non-grant of the pension was a continuing wrong and that the original application before the Tribunal was not barred by limitation. He relies upon (1995) 5 SCC 628 (M.R. Gupta vs. Union of India & Ors.), (2008) 8 SCC 648 (Union of India & Ors. vs. Tarsem Singh) and (1996) 8 SCC 637 (Pilla Sitaram Patrudu & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.) in support of his contention that when there is continuing wrong, there is no question of limitation.

4. Learned advocate appearing for the review applicant draws the attention of the Court to two orders of the Co-ordinate Bench passed while admitting the writ petition. He submits that, the Co-ordinate Bench returned their prima facie finding that the Tribunal erred in deciding the issue of limitation as against the review applicant. According to him, the order dated August 25, 2023 disposing of the writ petition directed against the erroneous order of the Tribunal contained an error on the face of the record as it did not decide the issue of limitation correctly. He submits, therefore, that the authorities be directed to grant pension to the petitioner.

5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the State submits that, there is no error apparent on the face of the record so far as the order dated August 25, 2023 is concerned. Orders of the Co-ordinate Bench while admitting the writ petition were interim orders and specifically stated to be passed on the basis of prima facie finding. In any event, according to him, a Court is entitled to reassess the entire evidence at the final hearing and be not bound by the prima facie finding returned at the interim stage.

6. Adverting to the facts of the present case, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the State submits that, the review applicant superannuated from service in 2007. Her request for pensionary benefit was rejected by the authorities in writing by a letter dated August 22, 2007. The review applicant never assailed such order of rejection dated August 22, 2007. He draws the attention of the Court to the provisions of Sections 20 and 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. He submits that, once a final order was passed, the rights inter se between the parties stood crystallised. In the facts of the present case, right to receive pension was decided as against the review applicant on August 22, 2007. Subsequent to August 22, 2007, it cannot be contended on behalf of the review applicant that, there was a continuing wrong occurring with regard to non-payment of pension. Review applicant did not approach the Tribunal within the time period prescribed under Section 21 of the Act of 1985 and consequently, the learned Tribunal was right in rejecting the original application.

7. Relying upon (2019) 16 SCC 348 (State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Dr. Tanmoy Mondal), learned Senior Advocate appearing for the State submits that in order to assume jurisdiction, a Court considering a review application must return a finding that there was an error apparent on the face of the record requiring review. In the facts of the present case, he submits that, there is no error apparent on the fact of the record