IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
( Appellate Jurisdiction ) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, HCJ 
MR. JUSTICE MIAN SAQIB NISAR 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE AMIR HANI MUSLIM 
MR. JUSTICE IQBAL HAMEEDUR RAHMAN 
MR. JUSTICE KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN 
 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.605 OF 2015 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 18.2.2015 
Passed by the Peshawar High Court Peshawar, in  
Writ Petition No.1961/2011) 
 
 
Rizwan Javed and others 
 
 
… 
… 
Appellants 
          
 
 
VERSUS 
Secretary Agriculture Livestock etc  
… 
… 
Respondents 
 
 
For the Appellant  : 
Mr. Ijaz Anwar, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Mr. M. S. Khattak, AOR 
For the Respondents : 
Mr. Waqar Ahmed Khan, Addl. AG KPK 
 
Date of hearing 
: 
24-02-2016 
O R D E R  
 
 
AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.-  This Appeal, by leave of the 
Court is directed against the judgment dated 18.2.2015 passed by the 
Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, whereby the Writ Petition filed by the 
Appellants was dismissed.  
2. 
 
The facts necessary for the present proceedings are that on  
25-5-2007, the Agriculture Department, KPK got an advertisement 
published in the press, inviting applications against the posts mentioned in 
the advertisement to be filled on contract basis in the Provincial Agri-
Business Coordination Cell [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cell’]. The 
Appellants alongwith others applied against the various posts. On various 
CA.605/2015 
2
dates in the month of September, 2007, upon the recommendations of the 
Departmental Selection Committee (DPC) and the approval of the 
Competent Authority, the Appellants were appointed against various posts 
in the Cell, initially on contract basis for a period of one year, extendable 
subject to satisfactory performance in the Cell. On 6.10.2008, through an 
Office Order the Appellants were granted extension in their contracts for 
the next one year. In the year 2009, the Appellants’ contract was again 
extended for another term of one year.  On 26.7.2010, the contractual term 
of the Appellants was further extended for one more year, in view of the 
Policy of the Government of KPK, Establishment and Administration 
Department (Regulation Wing). On 12.2.2011, the Cell was converted to 
the regular side of the budget and the Finance Department, Govt. of KPK 
agreed to create the existing posts on regular side. However, the Project 
Manager of the Cell, vide order dated 30.5.2011, ordered the termination of 
services of the Appellants with effect from 30.6.2011. 
3. 
 
The Appellants invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the 
learned Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, by filing Writ Petition 
No.196/2011 against the order of their termination, mainly on the ground 
that many other employees working in different projects of the KPK have 
been regularized through different judgments of the Peshawar High Court 
and this Court. The learned Peshawar High Court dismissed the Writ 
Petition of the Appellants holding as under : - 
“6. 
While coming to the case of the petitioners, it would 
reflect that no doubt, they were contract employees and were 
also in the field on the above said cut of date but they were 
project employees, thus, were not entitled for regularization 
of their services as explained above. The august Supreme 
Court of Pakistan in the case of Government of Khyber 
CA.605/2015 
3
Pakhtunkhwa Agriculture, Live Stock and Cooperative 
Department through its Secretary and others vs. Ahmad 
Din and another (Civil Appeal No.687/2014 decided on 
24.6.2014), by distinguishing the cases of Government of 
NWFP vs. Abdullah Khan (2011 SCMR 989) and 
Government of NWFP (now KPK) vs. Kaleem Shah (2011 
SCMR 1004) has categorically held so. The concluding para 
of the said judgment would require reproduction, which 
reads as under : - 
“In view of the clear statutory provisions the 
respondents cannot seek regularization as they were 
admittedly project employees and thus have been 
expressly 
excluded 
from 
purview 
of 
the 
Regularization Act. The appeal is therefore allowed, 
the impugned judgment is set aside and writ petition 
filed by the respondents stands dismissed.” 
7. 
In view of the above, the petitioners cannot seek 
regularization being project employees, which have been 
expressly excluded from purview of the Regularization Act. 
Thus, the instant Writ Petition being devoid of merit is 
hereby dismissed. 
 4. 
 
The Appellants filed Civil Petition for leave to Appeal 
No.1090 of 2015 in which leave was granted by this Court on 01.07.2015. 
Hence this Appeal.  
5. 
 
We have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants and the 
learned Additional Advocate General, KPK. The only distinction between 
the case of the present Appellants and the case of the Respondents in Civil 
Appeals No.134-P of 2013 etc. is that the project in which the present 
Appellants were appointed was taken over by the KPK Government in the 
year 2011 whereas most of the projects in which the aforesaid Respondents 
were appointed, were regularized before the cut-off date provided in North 
West Frontier Province (now KPK) Employees (Regularization of Services) 
Act, 2009. The present Appellants were appointed in the year 2007 on 
contract basis in the project and after completion of all the requisite codal 
formalities, the period of their contract appointments was extended from 
CA.605/2015 
4
time to time up to 30.06.2011, when the project was taken over by the KPK 
Government. It appears that the Appellants were not allowed to continue 
after the change of hands of the project. Instead, the Government by cherry 
picking, had appointed different persons in place of the Appellants. The 
case of the present Appellants is covered by the principles laid down by this 
Court in the case of Civil Appeals No.134-P of 2013 etc. (Government of 
KPK through Secretary, Agriculture vs. Adnanullah and others), as the 
Appellants were discriminated against and were also similarly placed 
project employees.   
7. 
 
We, for the aforesaid reasons, allow this Appeal and set aside 
the impugned judgment. The Appellants shall be reinstated in service from 
the date of their termination and are also held entitled to the back benefits 
for the period they have worked with the project or the KPK Government. 
The service of the Appellants for the intervening period i.e. from the date of 
their termination till the date of their reinstatement shall be computed 
towards their pensionary benefits.  
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
 
 
Judge  
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge  
 
Judge 
 
 
Announced in open Court on ____________. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
J 
Approved for reporting. 
Sohail/**