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

Const. Petition No.127 of 2012 35permanent Judge of the High Court and the date of his retirement,to show that admittedly before retirement he rendered actualservice as a judge of the High Court for a period of 04-years, 05-months and 27-days. In his further arguments, learned Sr. ASCfirmly disagreed with the submissions of many other learned ASCs,who earlier to him have argued the case, on the point ofmaintainability of this petition as well as about the interpretationof paragraphs-2 and 3 of Fifth Schedule to Article 205 of theConstitution. He contended that this Court, being the apex Court,has wide jurisdiction to exercise suo moto review powers and theprinciple of stare decisis is not application in this regard. To fortifyhis submissions in this regard, he placed reliance upon the case ofAbdul Ghaffar-Abdul Rehman v. Asghar Ali (PLD 1998 SC 363).28. Again, making reference to the language of paragraph-2 ofFifth Schedule to Article 205 of the Constitution, he stronglycontended that there is only one category of judges of the HighCourt i.e. “Every judge” mentioned in this paragraph, either read itseparately and independently or together with paragraph-3, whoseright to pension are to be determined by the President from time totime and until so determined, they are entitled to the privileges,allowances and rights, to which immediately before itscommencing day, the judges of the High Court were entitled. Forthis purpose, he also made reference to High Court Judges OrderNo.7 of 1937, President’s Order No.9 of 1970 and President’s OrderNo.3 of 1997, to show that even before partition of the subcontinent,the rights, qualifications and entitlement of the judgesof the High Court for the purpose of pension were being regularlydetermined, but at no point in time, any judge of the High Court