Case Details

Citation(s)
2018 SLG 1181 2018 SLD 1181 2018 PLD 1

W.P. No. 535 of 2016, decision Dated: 25-10-2017.
AZHAR SALEEM BABAR, JUSTICE, MUHAMMAD SHERAZ KIANI, JUSTICE, SADAQAT HUSSAIN RAJA, JUSTICE
Barrister Hamayun Nawaz Khan for Petitioner. Muhammad Noorullah Qureshi for
Respondents.

COURT OF AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR

VS

GOVERNMENT OF AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND 4 OTHERS

Law:

Section: 43(9)

(a) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974)--- ----S. 43(9) & Fifth Sched.---High Court Judges (Leave, Pension and Privileges) Order (P.O. No. 3 of 1997), Ss. 14 & 16---Retired Judge of High Court (AJ&K)---Pensionary benefits---Pre-requisites---Minimum length of service---Reading of paragraphs 14 and 16 of the High Court Judges (Leave, Pension and Privileges) Order, 1997 made it abundantly clear that five years service, as a Judge of the High Court, was essential for the purpose of (full) pensionary benefits---Service of petitioner as Judge of the High Court was 2 years, 10 months and 12 days---Stance of petitioner that under the High Court Judges (Leave, Pension and Privileges) Order, 1997, he was fully entitled to all pensionary benefits, irrespective of length of service was, thus, not consistent with the provisions of the High Court Judges (Leave, Pension and Privileges) Order, 1997---Writ petition was dismissed in circumstances. Begum Nusrat Ali Gonda v Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2013 SC 829 and Justice (R) Abdul Rashid Sulehria v. AJ&K Government and 3 others 2015 SCR 1396 ref. (b) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974)--- ----S. 43(9) & Fifth Sched.---High Court Judges (Leave, Pension and Privileges) Order (P.O. No. 3 of 1997), Ss. 14 & 16---Retired Judge of High Court (AJ&K)---Pensionary benefits---Pre-requisites---Minimum length of service---When an advocate was elevated as Judge of the High Court (AJ&K) his experience at Bar was not liable to be treated towards length of his service for the purpose of pensionary benefits. P. Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India and others AIR 2014 SC 1619 not applicable. (c) Interpretation of statutes--- ----Duty of a Court was to interpret the law as it was and not as it ought to be. (d) Interpretation of statutes--- ----Rule of interpretation of a statutory instrument was that attempt shall be made to give harmonious meaning and save every word of the statute and not to destroy any of its provision. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: M. TUBASSUM AFTAB ALVI, C.J.--- The supra titled Writ Petition has been filed under section 44 of the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492