LAHORE:The Lahore High Court (LHC) dismissed a constitutional petition filed by former judge Justice (retd) Zafar Iqbal Chaudhry, who challenged the rejection of his request for pensionary benefits, holding that a high court, acting as an institution through its judges and chief justice, is not amenable to judicial review under Article 199(5) of the Constitution.
Justice Asim Hafeez dismissed the petition along with an application seeking permission to amend it, ruling that the constitutional bar could not be circumvented indirectly through proposed amendments.
According to the judgment released on Wednesday, Justice (Retd) Zafar Iqbal had applied for pensionary benefits. His request was examined by a committee comprising judges of the LHC but was not approved. The committee’s recommendations were subsequently considered by the Chief Justice, who declined the request.
The decision was communicated to the petitioner through a letter issued by the LHC registrar on May 11, 2026, which he challenged before the court.
During the proceedings, the law officer questioned the maintainability of the petition and relied on a Supreme Court judgment in the case of Gul Tiaz Khan Marwat v. The Registrar, Peshawar High Court, Peshawar and others (PLD 2021 Supreme Court 391).
However, counsel for the petitioner argued that the Supreme Court had subsequently reviewed the matter in a judgment reported as Gul Tiaz Khan Marwat v. The Registrar, Peshawar High Court, Peshawar and others (2026 SCMR 287), contending that the earlier ruling no longer constituted a binding precedent.
Justice Asim Hafeez observed that the review judgment had not overturned the legal reasoning of the original judgment. Instead, the Supreme Court had set aside its earlier decision to the extent of the review petitioner after identifying an apparent error concerning an alternative appellate remedy available under the Peshawar High Court Ministerial Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2020.
The judge noted that the Supreme Court had remanded that matter to the Chief Justice of the Peshawar High Court for placing the petitioner’s appeal before nominated judges for a decision in accordance with law.
Examining the constitutional question, Justice Asim Hafeez held that the legal position under Article 199(5) remained unchanged. He observed that a High Court, its committees comprising judges, and the Chief Justice constituted an integrated institutional whole and were not amenable to judicial review in the circumstances of the case.
The court further ruled that the petitioner could not invoke the doctrine of persona designata to challenge the judicial committee’s recommendations and their endorsement by the Chief Justice. It also found that the exceptions discussed by the Supreme Court in District Bar Association, Rawalpindi and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2015 Supreme Court 401) did not apply to the case.
Rejecting the application for amendment, the court observed that what was prohibited directly could not be accomplished indirectly through proposed changes to the petition.
Emphasising the need to preserve institutional collegiality and judicial comity, Justice Asim Hafeez dismissed both the amendment application and the constitutional petition.