Law:

Section:

Pension of Judges of Superior Courts Order (2 of 1993) ---Art. 2(2)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.205, 199 & Fifth Sched.-- Rignts and privileges admissible to a retired Judge of High Court having served for a period of less than five years--- Article 2(2), Pension of Judges of Superior Courts Order, 1993 clearly indicates that benefit arising out of the Order would extend not only to a Judge who had completed five, years of service as such Judge but also to every other Judge who had retired from service before completion of said period---Reference to every other Judge of High Court in Art.2(2) of the said Order would be to a Judge other than the Chief Justice of that High Court---Judge of High Court who had retired before completing five years of his service in the High Court to whom such benefit as envisaged by Art.2(2), Pension of Judges of Superior Courts Order, 1993 were denied was thus, entitled to those benefits including pensions to which other Judges on retirement (who had completed five years as a Judge of High Court) were entitled. [pp. 229,230] A & B MA. Rasheed v. Pakistan PLD 1988 Quetta 70 and IA. Sharwani v Government of Pakistan 1991 SCMR 1041 rel. Petitioner in person. S. Tariq Ali, Standing Counsel and K.M. Nadeem, Asstt. A: G. for Respondents. Dates of hearing: 7th and 8th February; 1995. . JUDGMENT MAMOON KAZI, J.-- The petitioner was appointed sub-Judge in 1953 after he was selected by Sindh Public Service Commission and he was promoted as District and Sessions Judge in 1972 and who subsequently appointed in 1983 as Secretary to the Government of Sindh in the Law Department. In July, 1985, the petitioner was appointed Additional Judge of this Court and was subsequently confirmed in July, 1988 and such Office was held by him till 25-10-1988 when the petitioner retired as a confirmed Judge of this Court. The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that the respondent No.4 has deprived him of the rights and benefits as guaranteed by the Constitution in respect of the petitioner's pension. At the time of the petitioner's retirement, respondent No.4 had fixed his pension as Rs.4,200 per month which was  …