Police officers walk past the Supreme Court of Pakistan building, in Islamabad, Pakistan April 6, 2022. REUTERS
ISLAMABAD:
A key policy governing transfers and postings of married civil servants is set to undergo fresh judicial scrutiny, as the Supreme Court has decided that the scope and applicability of the wedlock policy in service matters should be examined by a larger bench.
A division bench of the apex court led by Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi, while hearing an appeal filed by the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) against an order of the Federal Service Tribunal (FST), directed the court office to fix the matter before a three-member bench for final adjudication.
During the hearing of the case last month, the bench observed that a recent SC decision had allowed a claim of retention at a particular station based on the Wedlock Policy, prompting a broader debate over whether such relief could be treated as enforceable in service law.
At this stage, Hafiz Ahsaan Ahmad Khokhar, representing the FBR, raised reservations regarding Justice Ayesha Malik’s earlier judgment, arguing that the Wedlock Policy could not be enforced as a vested or absolute right by a civil servant in derogation of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, the Estacode, and the Establishment Division’s instructions governing transfers and postings.
He further pointed out that in the present case, the civil servant had remained posted at Peshawar for more than fifteen years, thereby taking the matter outside the scope and intent of the Wedlock Policy, which he said was subject to administrative exigencies and principles of rotation.
The counsel emphasised that the applicability of the policy must be examined strictly in light of service laws and the governing administrative instructions. Following these arguments, the bench referred the matter to a three-member bench for final adjudication.
The referral has triggered debate within legal circles, particularly over why the matter was sent to a larger bench despite the existence of a two-member decision on the Wedlock Policy.
Legal experts suggest that the three-member bench may take a different view from the liberal interpretation earlier adopted by Justice Ayesha Malik regarding the policy’s scope and enforceability.
In December last year, a division bench comprising Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Ayesha Malik had observed that the state must follow the Wedlock Policy, given that it was designed to specifically tackle the difficulties faced by married government employees and unmarried female government employees.
In that judgment, the court held that the government could not selectively apply the policy, stressing that it must be followed in letter and spirit to remove hardship and to discourage the continued practice of issuing transfer orders without sensitivity to the requirements of married employees.
“Hence, as a matter of propriety, effort should be made to follow the Policy to avoid psychological, economical and social strains on families,” the judgment said.
The court said relevant constitutional provisions collectively place a burden on the state to promote the full participation of women in public service and to protect the institution of marriage and family for the benefit of both men and women.
