P L D 1980 Lahore 509 (PLP)

This order shall also dispose of anther petition (W. P. 1081-S-80) involving the same question of law.

2. The petitioner was appointed a Tax Collector on 19th September, 1947, in the Market Committee, Okara, established under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1939. He completed his 25 years of service on 19th September, 1972. Later, he was promoted to the post of Inspector in 1977. It is stated that the petitioner had a blotless career and did not earn a single adverse entry from any of his superiors. He was, however, retired from service vide order dated 20th January, 1980, by respondent No. 1 under section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, for the reason that he bad completed 25 years of service qualifying him for pension or other benefits.

3. Jamshed Akhtar, petitioner, in the other case (W. P. 1081-S-80) was also appointed a Tax Collector on 28th May, 1951. He completed his 25 years of service on 27th May, 1976, and was retired vide the impugned order dated 20th January, 1980.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Market Committee is a body corporate according to section 14 of the Punjab . Agricultural Produce Mark6t Ordinance, 1978, and the petitioners being its employees are not governed by the service rules meant for the Provincial Government employees. He referred to rule 70(6) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Market (General) Rules, 1979, to say that the Legislature has applied only such of the civil service rules to the Market Committee employees as are relevant to service conditions including disciplinary matters and others. He further submitted that no provision for retirement age is made in any of those Civil Service Rules and, therefore, there was no question of retiring the petitioners.

5. As. for the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, the learned counsel submitted that the same is not applicable as such without a specific reference about it. He submitted that rule 70(6) referred to above only referred to `rules, and not the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. In his submission, therefore, the power under section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, could not have been exercised by the Administrator.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the reference made in rule 70(6) would also include reference to the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, and all other rules concerning terms and conditions of service. I am afraid, however, I cannot accept that submission. A legislation by reference is applicable only to the extent of the reference and not beyond. The term `rules, as used in rule 70(6) could attract only the rules as they concern the service conditions, including- disciplinary matters and others but not something which is either not contained in the rules or is only available in the Act.

7. The Legislature could use the word `law, instead of `rules, if it intended to use the entire package of laws and rules governing the civil servants. Even the constitutional provisos would then apply to the limited extent they are there. Again, admittedly the Market Committee is a body corporate. Its employees are, therefore, a category apart. They can only be governed by such rules as are specifically applicable to them, section 12(ii) o the Punjab Civil Servants Act, therefore, would not become applicable in the case. The impugned action consequently cannot be maintained. For the reasons given above, the impugned orders are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The result is that the petitioners shall deemed to be in service of the respondent Market Committee. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.