SC upholds civil servant’s right to family life

Ties civil servant transfers to constitutional family rights as per 1998 Wedlock Policy

The Supreme Court of Pakistan has ruled that all government departments must follow the 1998 Wedlock Policy, stating that administrative convenience cannot override the constitutional duty to protect civil servants’ family life.

The judgment, delivered by a bench of Justice Ayesha A. Malik and Justice Munib Akhtar, followed a petition by Mubashir Iqbal Zafar, an Assistant Health Inspector (BPS-5), against the Ministry of Defence and other respondents.

Zafar had challenged his transfer from Abdul Hakim, District Khanewal, to Dera Nawab Sahib, District Bahawalpur, on February 8, 2021, citing medical and family hardships. He is diabetic, while his wife, a BPS-14 government school teacher at GGES Jinnah Colony, Abdul Hakim, suffers from a heart condition, and the couple has two minor children. Zafar’s request to remain at Abdul Hakim or be transferred nearby was rejected on March 30, 2021, and the Federal Service Tribunal in Islamabad later dismissed his appeal.

The Supreme Court noted that the transfer had been issued in a “routine manner” without any compelling public-interest reason. This, it said, violated the Wedlock Policy and Articles 34 and 35 of the Constitution, which protect family life and promote women’s participation in public service.

Read: SC orders enforcement of wedlock policy

The Wedlock Policy requires the state to consider the challenges faced by married couples and unmarried female employees, and to post them near their spouses or families unless there is a strong public-interest reason not to.

The court acknowledged that a civil servant “does not have an absolute right to be transferred to any specific location.” However, it emphasised that the policy’s purpose is to reduce the burden of separation and protect family life, binding the state to follow it. The court also observed that the government’s “one-dimensional approach” often ignores this objective, treating transfers as routine and expecting employees to adjust without considering their family circumstances.

The judgment stated that the policy is “designed to reduce hardship, promote family stability, and foster greater participation of women in public service.” It warned against using "convenience, tradition or rigid administrative practices" to override this duty. The Court added that the government must follow the policy fully, in both letter and spirit.

"Instead, we find that the intent is the opposite of what the Policy sets out," Justice Malik noted, adding that administrative actions must be rooted in the best interest of the public, ensuring that governance remains people-centric.

Legal experts welcomed the ruling as a significant step toward gender-sensitive and family-focused governance. “This judgment shows that the gender and family lens is not just limited to women but benefits the entire family,” said Nida Usman, lawyer and founder of the Women in Law Initiative Pakistan.

Medical hardship

The court found the government’s reasoning, that Zafar could not remain at one posting continuously, “unjustified and inadequate” in light of his medical and family circumstances. By setting aside the transfer order, the court directed all government departments to treat the Wedlock Policy as a binding directive to avoid "psychological, economic and social strains on families" caused by orders passed "without thought or sensitivity."

Usman added that Zafar’s relief demonstrates that the gender and family perspective applies not just to women, but to families as a whole.

Justice Ayesha A. Malik has delivered rulings on family and women’s rights, including cases related to Khula and marital abuse.

Read More: SC reinforces women’s autonomy in khula, recognises psychological abuse

In a judgment announced in October in Dr. Seema Hanif Khan v. Waqas Khan (CPLA No.3268 of 2024), the Supreme Court ruled that lower courts must apply the civil standard of proof and consider evidence of emotional and mental abuse under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 (DMMA), noting that such abuse often occurs in private.

The court observed that abuse within the marital home may have no witnesses, affirmed that Khula is a woman’s personal right which cannot be granted without her clear consent, and ensured that the petitioner would retain her dower, including gold, money, and property.

It also restored the Family Court’s decree of dissolution on the grounds of second marriage and psychological cruelty, highlighting the need for objective and respectful judicial reasoning. The ruling sets an important precedent for cases involving Khula, psychological abuse, and women’s autonomy in marriage.