November 10, 2001	Saturday	Shaba’an 23, 1422

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window).

ISLAMABAD, Nov 9: Lahore High Court’s seven retired judges, who were refused pension and other benefits as they did not serve the high court for five years, have approached the Supreme Court, seeking direction to the government for amending the relevant rules to allow them pensionary benefits.

The judges, who filed a joint petition in the SC on Thursday under its original jurisdiction, are not getting any pension as their service as high court judge was less than five years each.

The petition was filed by Justice Aqil Mirza, Justice Abdul Hafeez Cheema, Justice Sharif Hussain Bokhari, Justice Ghulam Sarwar, Justice Rao Iqbal Ahmad Khan, Justice Sheikh Amjad Ali and Justice Raja Mohammad Khurshid (all retired judges).

The petitioners retired in the recent past as permanent judges on attaining the age of superannuation but before completing five years as judges.

The non-payment of pension and other pensionary benefits to them by the respondents against the relevant provisions of the constitution and the law warranted interference by the apex court.

The petitioners contended that irrespective of the length of service as judges of the high court, they were entitled to pensions and pensionary benefits.

They stated that those retired high court judges, who were not receiving pensions, also faced great hardships as Article 207 of the constitution put embargo upon their law practice before the high court which he served and the courts subordinate to it before any authority within its jurisdiction.

They said when the Presidential Order 9/1970 had been issued, such retired judges could practice before the same high court they had served and before any other authority within its jurisdiction.

Under the Constitution of 1962 also, no such restriction to law practice had been imposed upon retired judges of high courts, they pointed out, saying that the bar against law practice was equally shared by the judges of the high court, who retired before or after five years of service, whereas the pensionary benefits were only for the latter. “This has created discrimination, which is not countenanced by Article 25 of the constitution.”

The petitioners prayed to the court to declare that they were entitled to monthly pension and other pensionary benefits under Article 205 of the constitution, and direct the federation of Pakistan to pay them pensions and other pensionary benefits from the dates of their retirement.