ISLAMABAD - After getting relief of not depositing money from back dates in detailed judgement of judges pension case, some 64 judges of the Supreme Court and high courts, who had been receiving pension and other benefits despite serving the superior judiciary less than five years, on Wednesday withdrew their review petitions.
Visible division was witnessed during the hearing among the seven judges of the bench headed by Jawwad S Khawaja. The judges, particularly Justice Saqib Nisar, who in the detailed judgement along with two other judges of the bench had written separate notes, strongly supported the stance of the retired judges to withdraw their review petitions.
However, Justice Jawwad told their lawyers that before accepting pleas of withdrawal of review petitions let him first go through the detailed judgement as well as the entire history of the case. But Justice Saqib said, “After the withdrawal of review petition by petitioners, what would be left behind for determining.”
Out of 64 retired judges around 15 of them had filed the review petitions. During the hearing the counsels for the petitioners (retired judges of Supreme Court and high courts) told the bench that after the detailed judgement their clients did not want to press their applications.
The lawyers said they had filed the review petitions after the announcement of judgement on 11th April 2013, while the detailed judgement was announced on June 7, 2013, in which they got relief.
A five-member bench of SC headed by Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali and comprising Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, Justice Muhammad Ather Saeed and Justice Iqbal Hameedur Rahman on April 11, 2013 through short order had declared that the judges of the superior courts who were in receipt of pension despite having rendered less than five years service, would not be entitled to receive pension with retrospective effect.
However, Justice Saqib Nisar, Justice Muhammad Ather Saeed and Justice Iqbal Hameedur Rahman opposed the retrospective effect of the judgement.
During the hearing, a petitioner Justice (Retd) Riaz Kayani stated that they were worried why the court was not disposing of this matter after their requests to withdraw the review petitions. He also stated that it was a matter of returning Rs 25 million for him in his case.
“Whether you are anxious that we are going to sit over the opinions of three judges and another suo moto will be taken,” Justice Saqib Nisar remarked. He also said he was conscious of different provisions of law which suggested that nothing could stop a petitioner from withdrawing his petition unless it does not prejudice the other party.
Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali who earlier had headed over the five-member bench while pointing towards Justice (Retd) Riaz Kiyani observed that it was not the question of Rs 25 million for him but also it was a matter of Rs 1.70 billion of the national exchequer.
“Why there is so much anxiety if I wanted to read the judgement,” Justice Jawwad again asked him but the petitioners admitted that it was the prerogative of the judge to read the verdict.
It is worth mentioning if the judgement is given retrospective, Rs 1,647,130,156 had to be recovered from 69 judges of the high courts. Of the total amount Rs 858,135,924 from 36 judges of the LHC, Rs 397,542,434 from 17 judges of the Peshawar High Court, Rs 46,166,468 from two judges of the Balochistan High Court and Rs 345,285,380 from 14 judges of the Sindh High Court.