A review petition must show an apparent error on the record to succeed, as delay does not extinguish the right to continuing benefits like family pensions.

ORDER

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J

The present Review Petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking review of the judgment dated 06.10.2025 passed in W.A. No. 1451/2025, by which the writ appeal came to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the wife of Late L/NK P.K. Purushothaman. The petitioner’s husband joined the Border Security Force (BSF) on 02.02.1981. He was dismissed from service by the Summary Security Force Court (SSFC) under Section 16(b) of the Border Security Force Act vide order dated 02.08.1999. Aggrieved thereby, he preferred a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 02.08.1999. Thereafter, he filed an appeal before the Government. As the said appeal was not being decided, he approached this Court by filing O.P. No. 29270/2000 seeking a direction to the authorities to consider and pass appropriate orders. Vide judgment dated 18.10.2000, the said Original Petition was disposed of with a direction to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible. The statutory appeal was thereafter dismissed in the year 2000.

2.1 These orders were never challenged by the petitioner’s husband during his lifetime, and he died on 23.09.2006. The petitioner, being the wife of the deceased employee, filed the writ petition in the year 2021 challenging the order of dismissal passed in the year 1999 and the appellate orders, which had not been challenged earlier by her husband. The petitioner also claimed family pension.

2.2 Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 7528/2021. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the petitioner’s husband had not chosen to challenge the orders during his lifetime and that the said orders had attained finality long ago. It was also noted that, admittedly, after his dismissal from service, the petitioner’s husband was not receiving any pension. There was an inordinate delay of nearly 20 years in approaching the writ court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Bench dismissed the writ appeal overlooking the fact that the petitioner is a widow claiming statutory family pension, which constitutes a recurring and continuing right and, therefore, does not get extinguished by lapse of time. It was further contended that this Bench committed mistakes and errors apparent on the face of the record, warranting review of the judgment under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure .

3.1 The learned counsel relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court inBalakrishna S.P. Waghmare v. Shree Dhyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan, AIR 1959 SC 798 andUnion of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 contending that delay cannot defeat a continuing injury or a recurring claim such as pension, particularly where no third-party rights are affected. Reliance was also placed on M.R. Gupta v. Union of India , 1995 (5) SCC 628 , wherein the appellant had approached the Court with a grievance relating to his initial pay fixation with effect from 01.08.1978, which claim was rejected on the ground that it was raised after eleven years. The Supreme Court, applying the principles of continuing wrong and recurring wrongs, reversed the decision. It was submitted that the said principles ought to have been applied by this Bench and that the prayer made in the writ petition ought to have been considered on merits.

3.2 The petitioner had been making continuous representations before the BSF authorities seeking reconsideration of the order of dismissal an