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

Const. Petition No.127 of 2012 394. What prompted the Registrar to put up a note on judicialside after lapse of almost four years of the passing ofjudgment which had attained finality.5. Whether it was not proper to place the matter before anappropriate Bench to proceed with the matter if at all itwas necessary whereas the Hon’ble Chief Justice hadhimself decided the fate of note that prima facie the notemake out case of examination and accordingly issuedNotices straightaway to the Retired Judges.6. Whether when a judgment is passed in regular jurisdictionunder Article 185 the same can be reopened by recourseto other jurisdictions under Article 184, 186 of theConstitution, Human Right Forum or even Suo Moto.7. Whether the judgment is also not sustainable onadditional ground qua discrimination amongst Judges ofSuperior Courts.8. Whether the retired Judge who never applied or party tothe judgment can suffer for the Act of Court throughwhich benefit is extended to them and at any rate recoverycould be made for no fault of them.9. Whether in any case the re-visitation of the judgmentwould be operative retrospectively or prospectively.10. What should be effects and consequences and way-outregarding inaction of President of Pakistan for notdetermining the pension according to the scheduleregarding the Judges of the High Court who had notcompleted five years as permanent service though he wasempowered under the Constitution to do so.”32. In addition to the above, he contended that in casepresent proceedings are deemed to be in exercise of powers ofreview conferred upon this Court under Article 188 of theConstitution, read with Order XXVI of the Supreme Court Rules,1980, in that eventuality the guiding principle for determining theparameters of review as laid down by this Court in the case ofAbdul Ghaffar - Abdul Rehman (supra) are to be strongly adheredto. Reiterating his stance on the point of maintainability of thispetition, he stated that in case the note of the Registrar is takenout of consideration and upon perusal of the judgment underchallenge this Court feels it appropriate to proceed further with