Presidential Order, 1997

Paragraph 14 & 16 — with service as such less then five years — Judge High Court — entitlement to pension — calculation of service as judge High Court for calculation of pension—according to the spirit of the referred statutory provision, a Judge of the High Court who doesn’t fulfill the condition laid down in paragraph 14 shall be entitled to pension as would have been admissible to him in service or post, had he not been appointed as a Judge of the High Court. In this paragraph it is further mentioned that his service as a Judge has to be treated as service for the purpose of calculating the pension. Justice Retired Abdul Rashied Sulehria v. Azad Govt. & others 2015 SCR 1396 (A)
Appointment as Judge of High Court — not results into break-up of service — calculation of service as Judge of High Court — for purpose of pension — calculation of pension for Judge High Court and other civil servants — different statutory provisions deal with — Presidential Order, 1997 and AJ&K Civil Services Pension Rules, 1971, respectively — The phraseology “had he not been appointed as Judge” used in this paragraph connotes the intention to avoid the anomaly of break in the service for the purpose of calculation of pension. It doesn’t mean that his appointment as a Judge of the High Court shall become nonexistent. The phraseology of the subsequent part of the paragraph clearly speaks that the service as a Judge has to be treated as service for the purpose of calculating the pension, which in our considered view, means that his elevation as a Judge of the High Court would not result into break in his service rather he will be treated in service as not being appointed as Judge for the purpose of continuation of service. But for the purpose of calculating the pension, his service as a Judge has to be treated as service. For calculation of pension as a Judge of the High Court and civil servant or person in service of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, the statutory provisions are different. The calculation for pension as Judge of the High Court has to be made in favour of a person who fulfills the condition prescribed in paragraph 14 of the Presidential Order, 1997, whereas the pension of a Judge not covered by paragraph 14 may be calculated according to law dealing with the civil service pension. In the Azad Jammu and Kashmir in this regard the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Pension Rules, 1971 amended up-to-date, are enforced. Justice Retired Abdul Rashied Sulehria v. Azad Govt. & others 2015 SCR 1396 (B)
Paragraph 29 — perks and privileges — Judge High Court having service less than five years — entitled of — as admissible to Secretary to Government — contention regarding subsidiary condition of service, in our considered view, the statutory provision of paragraph 29 of the Presidential Order, 1997 is very much clear and loudly speaks that a judge of the High Court in this regard is entitled for the privileges and rights as admissible to an officer holding the rank of Secretary to the Government. According to the spirit of this paragraph, the subsidiary conditions of service have to be determined in a manner favourable to the retiring person. In our considered view, an unambiguous and clear statutory provision does not require any further interpretation. All the subsidiary privileges and rights admissible according to scope of para 29 of the Presidential Order, 1997 have to be granted to the appellant. Justice Retired Abdul Rashied Sulehria v. Azad Govt. & others 2015 SCR 1396 (G)