A constitutional bench of the Sindh High Court has rejected former judge Salman Ansari’s petition seeking judicial recognition and pension benefits.
Ansari had asked the court to recognise his former status as a high court judge and release his pension.
He had also sought other benefits associated with the office of a high court judge.
However, the constitutional bench ruled that he was not entitled to pension benefits under previous judicial decisions.
Justice Jafar Raza authored the judgement, while Justice Adnan Karim was also part of the bench.
Why Did the Court Reject the Claim?
The court noted that Salman Ansari was appointed as an additional judge of the Sindh High Court in 2007.
However, according to the judgement, he did not take the oath required under the Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO).
The court also noted that Ansari was removed from office in 2009.
His removal followed a Supreme Court ruling in the Sindh High Court Bar Association case.
Based on these circumstances and previous court judgements, the constitutional bench found that Ansari could not claim the requested pension benefits.
Therefore, the court rejected his constitutional petition seeking recognition and financial benefits linked to the judicial office.
Salman Ansari Was Among Six Additional SHC Judges
Salman Ansari was among six additional judges appointed to the Sindh High Court in September 2007.
Contemporary reports stated that Chief Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed administered their oath of office on September 17, 2007.
The oath-taking ceremony took place at the SHC judges’ library in the presence of judges and advocates.
Bar representatives also attended the ceremony.
Then-President Pervez Musharraf had appointed the additional judges on September 15, 2007, for a period of one year.
The appointment and subsequent judicial developments later became relevant to Ansari’s claim for recognition and pension.
Court Relies on Previous Judicial Decisions
The constitutional bench based its decision on the legal position established through previous court judgements.
The court specifically held that those decisions did not support Ansari’s claim to pension benefits.
His failure to take the required PCO oath also formed part of the circumstances considered by the bench.
Moreover, the court noted his removal following the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Sindh High Court Bar Association case.
The judgement therefore rejected the argument that Ansari should receive pension and other benefits associated with service as a high court judge.
What Are Constitutional Benches of the SHC?
Constitutional benches of the Sindh High Court deal with matters involving constitutional interpretation and fundamental rights.
They also exercise original jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan.
These specialised benches hear constitutional petitions and other matters falling within their designated jurisdiction.
Their work includes cases involving constitutional questions, public interest litigation and challenges concerning jurisdiction or statutory provisions.
The constitutional bench structure followed legislative and provincial legal changes affecting the organisation of Pakistan’s superior judiciary.
SHC Maintains Separate Bench Schedules
The Sindh High Court maintains separate rosters and cause lists for its regular and constitutional benches.
Regular benches and constitutional benches therefore have separate sittings and schedules. The constitutional benches handle cases assigned to them under the applicable legal framework.
The latest judgement concerning Salman Ansari was delivered by such a constitutional bench.
The decision means Ansari’s request for recognition as a former high court judge and payment of pension benefits has been rejected.
The court’s reasoning centred on his judicial appointment, the oath issue, his subsequent removal and earlier judicial decisions governing his claim.
