IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
 
 
 
 
 (Appellate Jurisdiction)  
 
PRESENT:  
MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED, HCJ 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
MR. JUSTICE MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL 
 
 
Civil Appeal No. 634/2014 and  
Civil Appeals No.431 & 432/2020 
(On appeal from the judgment/Order dated 8.5.2012 
and dated 20.4.2018 passed by the Peshawar High 
Court, 
Peshawar 
in 
W.P.3095/2011 
and 
W.P.No.3058/2011). 
 
 
1. Aqeel Shahzad & others  
 
    …(In CA.634/2014) 
 
 
2. Director General Agriculture (Extension) Govt. of KPK 
Peshawar & others  
 
        …(In CA.431/2020) 
 
 
3. The Chairman, Peshawar Market Committee, Fruit and 
Vegetable, Peshawar & others  
 
      ….(In CA.432/2020) 
 
 
…APPELLANTS  
 
 
 
 
 
 
VERSUS 
 
1. Govt. of KPK thr. Chief Secretary KPK Peshawar & 
others 
…(In CA.634/2014) 
 
 
2. Muhammad Israr & others 
…(In CA.431/2020) 
 
 
3. Muhammad Israr & others 
   ….(In CA.432/2020) 
 
…RESPONDENTS  
 
 
 
 
    
For the appellants: 
Mr. Misbahullah Khan, ASC   
Mr. M.S. Khattak, (Absent)  
 
(In CA.634/2014) 
  
 
 
Mr. Zahid Yousaf Qureshi, 
Addl.A.G., KP  
Mr. Saadullah Jandoli, AOR (Absent) 
 
Civil Appeals No. 634/2014, etc 
 
2
(In CA.431/20 also for respondents No.1-5 
in CA.No.634/14) 
Sardar Ali Raza, ASC  
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR  
 
(In CA.432/20) 
 
 
For the respondents 1-16: 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Khalid Rehman, ASC 
Mr. M.S.Khattak, AOR (Absent)  
 
 
 
(In CAs.No.431-432/20) 
 
 
Other respondents: 
Nemo 
 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
 
22.7.2020 
 
 
JUDGMENT  
 
MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, J-.  
 
 
 
 
We have before us an appeal (Civil Appeal No.634/2014) 
with leave of this Court vide order dated 15th April, 2014 against a 
judgment dated 8th May, 2012 of Peshawar High Court, Peshawar 
whereby the Writ Petition No.3095/2011 filed by the appellants for 
regularizing 
their 
services 
from 
the 
date 
of 
their 
initial 
appointments 
was 
dismissed. 
Similarly 
a 
Writ 
Petition 
No.3058/2011 was filed by the employees of Peshawar Market 
Committee, almost with the similar prayer as in the above noted 
Writ Petition which is reproduced herein-below:- 
 
“On acceptance of this writ petition, this Hon’ble Court may 
graciously be pleased to:- 
 
i) 
Direct the respondents to convert the appointment 
order dated 01.10.2010 into respective regular basic 
pay scale/grace. 
 
ii) 
 Further direct the respondents to issue order of 
regularization of services of petitioners scale-wise 
since the entry into their respective services. 
Civil Appeals No. 634/2014, etc 
 
3
 
iii) 
Direct the respondents to release the outstanding 
salaries of the petitioners since June 2011 forthwith. 
 
iv) 
Any 
other 
relief 
deemed 
appropriate 
by 
this 
Honourable Court may also be granted in favour of 
petitioners”. 
 
 
which was allowed by a Division Bench of the Peshawar High 
Court vide its judgment dated 20th April, 2018. The Appellants 
‘Director 
General 
Agriculture 
(Extension) 
Govt. 
of 
Khyber 
Pakhtunkhwa Peshawar & others’ AND ‘The Chairman, Peshawar 
Market Committee, Fruit and Vegetable, Peshawar & others’ in Civil 
Appeals No.431/2020 & 432/2020 respectively have questioned 
the said judgment with leave of this Court dated 3rd April, 2020.  
 
 
Since common questions of law and facts are involved in 
these appeals so taken together. 
 
2. 
 
The appellants of Civil Appeal No.634/2014 and 
private respondents of Civil Appeals No.431/2020 & 432/2020 
(The Employees) were appointed and working against different 
posts since 1994 to 2010 on fixed pay but in different pay scales. 
Their services were initially regulated under the erstwhile Act and 
Rules i.e. ‘The Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939 (V of 1939)’ 
and ‘Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1940’ since repealed by 
the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Agricultural and Livestock Produce 
Markets Act, 2007 (The Act, 2007) and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 
Agricultural Produce Markets General Rules, 2011 (The Rules 
2011). Besides the Rules 2011, bye-laws under Section 36 of the 
Act, 2007 were also approved by the Government of the Khyber 
Pakhtunkhwa vide letter No.SOAII (AD)4(5)3/2012/Vol-I dated 12th 
February, 2013.  
Civil Appeals No. 634/2014, etc 
 
4
 
3. 
 
Learned counsel for the parties and learned Additional 
Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa were heard and record of 
the case was perused.  
 
4. 
 
Record of the case would reveal that Section 16 of the 
repeal Act of 1939 and the Act 2007 deal with the appointment of 
employees of the Market Committees. Whereas Section 17 of the 
both the laws ibid provide the status of the employees of Market 
Committees as that of public servants within the meaning of 
Section 21 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (PPC). Bye-laws of 
2006 under the erstwhile Act of 1939 provide three categories of 
employees’ i.e. (1) Regular (2) Contract (3) Contingent, whereas 
Bye-laws of 2013 under the Act 2007 provide two categories of 
employees i.e. (1) Regular (2) Daily Wages.  
 
 
 
The employees before us in both the cases were 
appointed between 1994 to 2010. The employees so appointed 
continued with their services. The erstwhile Act, 1939 was once 
repealed 
having 
become 
redundant 
due 
to 
the 
Khyber 
Pakhtunkhwa Local Government Ordinance, 2001 vide Ordinance 
No.XXXVIII of 2002 and then again the erstwhile Act, 1939 was 
revived by repealing the Ordinance, 2002 ibid vide Khyber 
Pakhtunkhwa, Act VII of 2004. The Government kept on improving 
the market committees’ system. In the same effort, the Government 
made Bye-law of 2006 under the Act 1939. Thereafter, the 
Government promulgated yet another Act “Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 
Agricultural and Livestock Produce Markets Act, 2007” (Act IV of 
2007). The Government also made and published/notified rules 
under Section 35 of the Act, 2007 with the name ‘The Khyber 
Civil Appeals No. 634/2014, etc 
 
5
Pakhtunkhwa Agricultural Produce Markets General Rules, 2011’ 
and Bye-laws under Section 36 thereof.  
 
 
 
Rule 71 of 2011 Rules deals with the appointments, 
terms and conditions of service of employees. (Sub-Rules 1,2,5 & 6 
are relevant). Relevant sub-rules of Rule 71 ibid are reproduced for 
ready reference:-  
 
“71. Appointment terms and conditions of service of 
employees. 
 
 
(i)  
The pay scales as prescribed in Schedule ‘IV’ 
annexed hereto shall apply to all the employees 
of a market committee. 
 
(ii)  
Recruitment/promotion to the posts of a 
market committee in future shall be made in 
accordance with- 
 
(a) The 
pay 
scales 
as 
prescribed 
in 
Schedule ‘ÍV’ and  
(b) The qualifications as prescribed in 
Schedule ‘V’ 
 
 
(iii)  
…………………………………………………………… 
 
(iv)  
…………………………………………………………… 
 
(v)  
If any person already employed by a market 
committee is not covered by Schedule ‘IV’ he 
shall be allowed to continue as such or may be 
absorbed at his request at place where such 
vacancy exists, with the prior approval of 
Government.  (Emphasis supplied). 
 
(vi)  
In respect of service conditions including 
disciplinary 
matters 
and 
other 
matters 
ancillary thereto, the employees of the market 
committee shall be governed mutatis mutandis 
by the rules applicable, from time to time, to 
the employees of Government. 
 
(vii) 
…………………………………………………………… 
 
(viii) 
…………………………………………………………” 
Civil Appeals No. 634/2014, etc 
 
6
 
5. 
 
The employees before us were appointed by the 
competent authority as mentioned in both the laws ibid with an 
admitted fact that there was no proper service structure at the 
time of such appointments. But a letter by Director General, 
Agriculture 
(Extension) 
KPK 
bearing 
No. 
E&M/29/165-D 
14400/DGA dated 26.8.2011 present at Page/108,109 of the 
original file of Civil Appeal No.634/2014 would reflect that some 
101 contingent/daily wages staff was regularized by ex-Market 
Committee. A letter bearing No. PMC/1-1/05 dated 02.09.2010 
regarding regularization of contingent employees which is available 
on Page/51 of the Paper Book of Civil Appeal No.431/2020 
confirms the fact of regularization of contingent employees. The 
above letter dated 26.8.2011 also refers to eleven other employees 
of different grades appointed during 1994, 1995 and 1996. It 
further says that terms and conditions and BPS mentioned in their 
appointment orders clearly indicate that their appointments were 
made on regular basis and they have served PMC for more than 
seventeen years and they as per Section 17 of the Act, 2007 are 
public servants and entitled to all benefits of pay and allowances 
as admissible to other Government employees. The Government 
was asked to consider their cases by keeping in mind span of their 
services. All the names contained in the said letter are of the 
appellants except the one at Serial No.11, Imdad Khan. His name 
does not appear in the array of appellants rather one Tanveer Khan 
has been arrayed as appellant No.11.  
 
6. 
 
In both the Writ Petitions the stance of the 
Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (The Government) and the 
Peshawar Market Committee (PMC) was almost the same that the 
Civil Appeals No. 634/2014, etc 
 
7
appointments made by the PMC were carried out in absence of any 
rules/instructions from the Government and there was no proper 
service structure for such appointments. The Government while 
realizing this fact constituted a committee vide its letter No.SOAII 
(AD)4(5)/2011/Vol-XIX dated 25.5.2011 to get a proper service 
structure and approved the recommendations of the said 
committee vide letter No.SOAII 4(5) 2011/Vol XX dated 26.8.2011. 
Besides the above, the contention of the learned Additional 
Advocate General and the counsel for the Peshawar Market 
Committee was that the Government has approved proper budget 
for the employees of Peshawar Market Committee as well as laid 
down a service structure and after approval of the same, 
appointments in the Market Committee would be made in 
accordance with the same.  
 
 
The stance of the Government put forth through its 
comments in both the Writ Petitions regarding recommendations of 
the above noted committee was not so clear. The categoric stance 
of the committee in its second meeting held on 28.5.2011 was that 
appointments of the staff were carried out in absence of any 
rules/instructions of the Government and having no legal status 
may be terminated. Further recommended that till appointment of 
regular staff in the light of Schedule-IV of the Rules 2011, the 
noted thirteen staff members will perform their duties. These 
thirteen include the names of appellants.  
7. 
 
While going through the impugned judgment dated 
08.05.2012, we have noted that the learned Division Bench of the 
High Court has taken the very harsh and technical aspect of the 
matter which even goes against the provisions of the Act of 2007, 
Civil Appeals No. 634/2014, etc 
 
8
Rules of 2011 and the By-Laws of 2013 on the subject. Appointing 
Authority under Section 16 of the Act of 2007 is the Market 
Committee. Terms and conditions of the employees as reflected in 
the different appointment orders (both under the existing and the 
repealed laws) would show that the same were of permanent and 
regular nature. We, in the circumstances, don’t think that the 
findings of the High Court are in accordance with law on the 
subject, hence are not maintainable.  
 
8. 
 
We have noted that employees of the PMC who have 
spent/rendered services in the Committee since 1994-95 and that 
too without any blemish and in spite of the Act 2007, its Rules 
2011 and the Bye-laws of 2013, have been made rolling stones 
struggling for their fundamental rights. We consider the action of 
respondents 
to 
terminate 
appellants 
and 
to 
make 
fresh 
appointments to be oppressive and against their fundamental 
rights specially when Rule 71(V) quoted above also gives protection 
to the persons already employed. While serving the PMC for such a 
long time, almost all of them would have lost their chance of fresh 
appointments in other Government departments. We in the 
circumstances cannot concur with the decision of the government 
and the Peshawar Market Committee (PMC) for termination of the 
employees or their fresh appointments under the Act 2007 and its 
rules and bye-laws ibid. We have also noted that the termination 
order dated 26.8.2011 of the employees in Writ Petition 
No.3058/2011 
was 
passed 
after 
the 
Rules, 
2011 
were 
notified/published on 14.4.2011; such termination itself is in 
violation of Rule-71 (V) ibid.  
Civil Appeals No. 634/2014, etc 
 
9
So, in this view of the matter, while allowing Civil Appeal 
No.634/2014, we set aside the impugned judgment. Resultantly, 
the order of termination dated 26.8.2011 of the appellants, being 
illegal and unlawful, having no legal effect, is also set aside. We 
further direct the Government and the Peshawar Market 
Committee to consider regularization of the services of the 
Appellants in accordance with law. Civil Appeals No.431/2020 and 
432/2020 are dismissed with no order as to costs.  
 
  
 
        Chief Justice  
 
 
 
   Judge 
 
 
 
    Judge  
Islamabad,  
22nd July, 2020 
Sarfraz. /-  
‘Not approved for reporting’