A recurring cause of action cannot substitute proof of pension entitlement.

Late Rect. Manjit Singh, husband of the petitioner, was enrolled in the Indian Army on 1 September 1977 and invalidated from service on 29 May 1978 after approximately 270 days of service.

His claim for disability pension was rejected by the PCDA (P), Allahabad, on 17 July 1979 on the ground that his disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.

He died in a motor vehicle accident on 22 November 1995.

The petitioner subsequently filed Original Application No. 218/2019 before the Armed Forces Tribunal seeking disability pension allegedly due to her deceased husband and consequential family pension.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on 24 January 2023, holding that the rejection of disability pension had not been challenged during the husband’s lifetime and that the relevant service records had since been destroyed.

The petitioner challenged that decision in WP(C) No. 726/2024, which was dismissed on 30 August 2025 on merits and on the grounds of delay and laches.

The present review petition alleged an error apparent on the face of the record, particularly in the Court’s treatment of pension as a recurring cause of action and its alleged failure to consider the authorities cited by the petitioner.

Whether the judgment dismissing the writ petition disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record by rejecting the claim on the grounds of delay and laches despite the assertion that pension constitutes a recurring cause of action?

Whether the non-specific reference to the judgments relied upon by the petitioner constituted a ground for review?

Whether the petitioner established any ground under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC—such as discovery of new evidence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason—to warrant review of the earlier judgment?

Review jurisdiction in writ proceedings is governed by Rule 65 of the J&K High Court Rules read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC; review is permissible only on discovery of new and important matter or evidence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason.

The Court relied on Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320, for the principle that review is not an appeal in disguise, cannot be used for rehearing on the same material, and is unavailable merely because another view is possible.

It also relied on Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715, holding that an error requiring a process of reasoning is not an error apparent on the face of the record.

Although pension may give rise to a recurring cause of action, that principle does not eliminate the requirement of proving the underlying entitlement through legally relevant material.

The Court held that the recurring nature of pension claims did not cure the petitioner’s failure to establish the foundational entitlement to disability pension.

The deceased serviceman had accepted the rejection of his disability pension claim for approximately 17 years and had never challenged it during his lifetime; the petitioner also waited approximately 23 years after his death before initiating proceedings, and the claim was ultimately raised more than four decades after the original rejection.

The material service and medical records had been destroyed after expiry of the prescribed retention period, leaving only the Long Roll, and the claim could not be determined on assumptions or presumptions.

The authorities cited by the petitioner were distinguishable because they were decided on factual records that were available for adjudication.

The Court further found that the authorities relied upon had been considered, even if each was not individually discussed; such non-reference did not amount to an error apparent on the face of the record.

Since the review petition merely sought reconsideration of the same arguments and material, it amounted to an impermissible rehearing rather than a proper review.

It held that the recurring nature of pension did not independently establish entitlement where the foundational service and medical records were unavailable, and that neither the omission to discuss every cited judgment nor the Court’s conclusions on delay and merits constituted an error apparent on the face of the record.

Finding no discovery of new evidence, patent error, or other sufficient reason under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, the Court dismissed Review Petition No. 61/2025.

Any pending applications were also disposed of.