JUDGMENT: Ch. Muhammad Ibrahim Zia, J.- This petition has been filed for review of the judgment of this Court handed down in Civil Appeal No. 100 of 2015 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent, herein, has been accepted.
2. The controversy in this lis relates to the question of admissibility of pension to a Judge High Court, who was elevated as Judge from judicial services but could not earn five years' service as Judge High Court. According to the relevant facts, the respondent, herein, was initially inducted in the service as Sub Judge, promoted as the District & Sessions Judge and lastly appointed as the Chairman, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal; and thereafter, he was appointed as the Judge, Azad Jammu and Kashmir Shariat Court on 17.12.2009; and finally, vide notification dated 13.03.2013, elevated as Judge, Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court. The respondent after attaining the age of superannuation, retired on 27.06.2014. He submitted a representation to the worthy President of Azad Jammu and Kashmir for grant of condonation in the deficiency of qualifying service as a Judge of the High Court and ultimately he invoked the writ jurisdiction. The High Court, after necessary proceedings dismissed the writ petition through the judgment dated 25.02.2015. An appeal was filed before this Court which was accepted vide judgment under review.
3. Mr. Muhammad Noorullah Qureshi, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioners after narration of necessary facts submitted that the interpretation of paragraph 16 of the Presidential Order relating to the pension of Judge of High Court is not consistent with the spirit of law and practice. He further submitted that in Pakistan, on retirement the Judges of the High Court due to lack of 5 years' qualifying service have been granted pension on the basis of notional pay with relation to the post held by them in service before elevation as Judge High Court. He also placed reliance on an unreported judgment of Baluchistan High Court titled Justice (R) Abdul Qadir Mangel vs. Chief Justice of the High Court of Balochistan and others (Civil Petition No. 362/14 decided on 07.01.2015). Same like, he has also placed on record some documents regarding fixation of pension of Judges of Lahore and Sindh High Courts, who have been granted pension as civil servants and their pension has not been fixed as last pay drawn as Judge High Court. He further submitted that it is an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the review of the judgment.
4. Conversely, Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondent strongly opposed the review petition on the ground that all the grounds agitated, amounts to re- opening of the case. This Court has authoritatively handed down the judgment on the subject which is also supported by the principle of law laid down by the apex Court of India, whereas the petitioners have failed to substantiate their arguments by any of the rulings from the apex Courts of the sub-continent. The judgment of the Balochistan High Court referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners neither has binding force, nor the proposition of last pay drawn has been considered or decided in the same. The other referred documents are the orders of the administrative authorities which have got no status of legal precedent to be followed. Thus, this review petition has no substance and the same is liable to be dismissed.
5. We have paid our utmost attention to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and also minutely examined the judgment and other documents referred to by the counsel for the petitioners. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that interpretation of paragraph 16 of Presidential Order made in the judgment under review is not consistent with the law, indicates that the petitioners want re-appraisal of matter which amounts to re-hearing of the case. According to the celebrated principle of law and consistent practice of this Court, review petition cannot be entertained for re-opening, re-appraisal or rehearing of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioners remained unsuccessful to assist the Court that whether, there is any judgment of the apex Court of Pakistan or India on this peculiar proposition. In the judgment under review the question of last pay drawn has been determined in the light of Finance Department of AJ&K Regulations, FD/R/(33)/81, dated 23.09.1986, which is applicable for calculation of the pension as a civil servant and after due deliberation the conclusion has been drawn by this Court which is fully supported from the principle of law enunciated in the identical proposition resolved by the apex Court of India.
6. So far as some documents regarding calculation of pension of Judges of different High Courts of Pakistan are concerned, as in these the matter has been administratively dealt with, therefore, the same has not got the status of legal precedent to be followed. In the referred judgment of the Balochistan High Court, the proposition as referred hereinbefore has neither been discussed nor considered with reference to the notification of last drawn pay. Even otherwise, the judgment of the High Court is not of binding nature. Therefore, the referred judgment and other administrative orders do not bring any fruit for the petitioners, hence, the same furnish no ground for review of the judgment.
The petitioners could not succeed to make out any valid ground for entertaining this review petition, therefore, finding no force the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs.