Mr. Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali Mr. Justice Mian Saqib Nisar M

Const. Petition No.127 of 2012 17President and such purported inaction on his part has never beenchallenged earlier in the history of the Sub-continent and ourCountry either under the dispensation of Government of India Act,1935 or the Constitutions of 1956, 1962 and 1973, except thepresent litigation emanating from the case of Ahmed Ali U.Qureshi. In his further submissions learned ASC also dilated uponthe concept of independence of the judiciary as a third pillar of theState, which, according to him, also covers its financialindependence qua right to pension for every judge of the HighCourt irrespective of his length of service in the office.10. Mr. Munir A. Malik, learned Sr. ASC in his furtherarguments, made reference to the office note dated 21.11.2012,submitted by the Registrar of Supreme Court of Pakistan for theperusal of Honourable Chief Justice of Pakistan, which formedbasis of these proceedings and contended that no doubt videjudgment in the famous case of Sindh High Court Bar Associationv. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2009 SC 879), President’s OrdersNo.8 of 2007 dated 14.12.2007 and Judges Pensionary BenefitsOrder 9 of 2007, have been declared to be coram non judice andnullity in the eyes of law, but on the basis of this case alone, thejudgment under challenge cannot be set aside, as many otherstrong independent reasons have been recorded in its paragraphs1 to 19, which still hold the field as alternate grounds for grant ofpensionary benefits. Further submissions of Mr. Malik was thateven if the Court comes to the conclusion about the nonentitlementof pensionary benefits for the honourable retiredjudges of the High Court, having rendered less than five yearsservice, keeping in view their high status in the society andbonafide implementation of the judgment under challenge, any