SHC appellate bench suspends single bench order that barred retired judge from pleading case

The Sindh High Court’s (SHC) appellate bench on Friday suspended an order of a single bench of the high court with regard to the right of a retired high court judge to appear as a counsel before the court to plead cases despite receiving pensionary benefits from the same court.

The interim order came on a high court appeal filed by former high court judge Rasheed A Razvi challenging the single bench orders with regard to his appearance as a counsel to plead a case.

The controversy arose during the hearing of a civil case when the counsel of one of the litigants had raised an objection to the appearance of the appellant as a counsel to plead the case of his defendant in the same high court from where he had been receiving pension as a retired judge.

The single bench had sought explanation from the appellant with regard to his position as to whether he could still appear before the SHC as a counsel for a litigant despite receiving pension as a retired judge of the court.

The court had also framed some questions with regard to vires of the clause(3)(b) of the Article 270AA in 18th constitutional amendment dealing with services of those superior court judges who did not take oath under General Pervez Musahraf’s 1999 Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO).

The court questioned whether the benefit of the Chief Executive Order-5 of 2000 for those permanent judges who rendered less than five years in service before they ceased to hold the office of the high court to plead as an advocate could be continued even after the amendment in the Article 270AA and insertion of the clause(3)(b).

The single bench had also raised a question what the effect of the insertion of the clause (3)(b) in the Article 270AA was on the judges to whom the benefit of special permission was extended by the Chief Executive Order-5 of 2000 on account of them being removed from the office of a judge of high court before the completion of the five-year period of service to qualify for the pensionary benefit as a judge of the high court.

A counsel for Razvi submitted that the appellant had not taken oath under the former military dictator’s PCO in 1999 and it was the Chief Executive Order-5 under which he was allowed to plead and act as an advocate in any court in the country as he had not completed five years as a judge of the high court. He submitted that the appellant while exercising his right under the clause (3)(b) of the Article 270AA had moved an application to the chief justice (CJ) of the SHC for grant of pensionary benefit which was accepted by the SHC CJ.

The counsel submitted that the SHC’s single bench had erred by observing in the impugned order that after the appellant started receiving his pensionary benefits, he was disentitled to practise and plead in the high court.

He submitted that the right of the appellant to practise and plead was protected under the Article 270AA of the constitution which saved all orders, acts and ordinances made by the chief executive of Pakistan between October 12, 1999, and October 31, 2003.

The high court’s appellate bench was requested to set aside the impugned orders issued by the single bench.

A division bench of the SHC headed by Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar, after the preliminary hearing of the appeal, observed that points raised by the appellant required consideration, and issued notices to the attorney general of Pakistan and Sindh advocate general for June 1. The bench, in the meantime, suspended the impugned orders of the single bench till the next date of hearing.