The Islamabad High Court Thursday dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by a retired Army colonel against service extension granted to Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani in 2010.A two-judge bench comprising Justice Muhammad Anwar Khan Kasi and Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui dismissed the petition after hearing arguments by Col (r) Inamur Rahim,

convener of the Ex-Servicemen Society, who had challenged the legality of three-year extension given to General Kayani in September 2011.The Islamabad High Court had dismissed a similar petition filed by Col (r) Rahim in September 2011, calling it‘not maintainable’which propelled Rahim to go for an intra-court appeal against the decision.The IHC had rejected the petition under Article 199 (3) of the Constitution, which bars the high court from hearing military-related matters. Col (r) Inam challenged the decision, maintainingthat Gen Kayani was not subject to the Army Act 1956 because he had attained the age of 60 on April 20, 2012.

During the hearing, Justice Siddique noted that the extension was granted by the government in November 2010, while Rahim had filed his petition in September 2012.“Why you waited almost two years before challenging the extension,” the court asked. “Under the Army Act, a person could not stay in uniform,after he turns 60. I waited until Kayani attainted the age of superannuation,” Rahim answered.He contended that General Kayani could no longer hold the post, as there is no provision in the Army Act under which an extension of a full tenure, or three years, can be given to any person.

He said that the Constitution does not permit granting such an extension because it affects the right of the officers waiting for their promotions.He cited the section 262-A of the Army Act that says the retirement age of an Army officer of the rank of lieutenant general is 58 and if he is promoted to the rank of the chief of army staff, or any extension granted, the retirement age would be 60 years.The bench remarked that the petitioner remained failed to mention exact plea in his appeal. “You have failed to file a quo warranto writ, which means under what law the respondent is holding a position’’ justice Siddiqui observed.