In the recent case titled Mubashir Iqbal Zafar vs. Ministry of Defence through its Secretary, Pak Secretariat-II Saddar, Rawalpindi and others (CPLA No.4701 of 2024), the petitioner, who was an Assistant Health Inspector, challenged a transfer order after the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dismissed his appeal. He argued that the transfer caused hardship due to his and his wife's medical conditions, violating the Wedlock Policy (Policy).
The landmark judgment, and the first on the Wedlock Policy, authored by Hon’ble Mrs Justice Ayesha A. Malik, thoroughly examines the history and scope of the Policy, which aims to reduce socio-economic hardship for married and unmarried female government employees by facilitating their posting at the same station as their spouse or family.
The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, setting aside the transfer order dated 08.02.2021 because it was issued without sufficient justification to override the constitutional mandate to protect marriage and family life as envisioned by the State's own Policy. The Court found that the government failed to provide a compelling reason of public interest to separate the spouses and emphasised that the Policy, designed to protect family stability, must be followed in letter and spirit.
The judgment provides a strong gender perspective by explicitly linking the implementation of the Wedlock Policy (Policy) to the constitutional mandate requiring the promotion of women's full and equal participation in national life and public service.
Constitutional Basis and Gender Participation
The Supreme Court grounds the requirement for implementing the Policy in Articles 34 and 35 of the Constitution. Specifically:
- Article 34 requires the State to take necessary steps to ensure the full participation of women in all spheres of national life.
- Article 35 requires the State to protect the marriage, the family, the mother, and the child.
The judgment states that these constitutional provisions collectively burden the State to frame policies, like the Wedlock Policy, that promote the full participation of women in public service while protecting the institution of marriage and the family. The Policy is thus framed not merely as an administrative guideline but as a measure to reduce hardships for women, foster family stability, and encourage greater participation of women in public service.
Not only is this the first judgment on the Wedlock Policy, but it also contains a very important element that is not only pro-women but also pro-family
Addressing Practice and Mindset
The judgment directly confronts the prevailing administrative mindset and practices that negate the Policy’s objectives, which is crucial for benefiting women who often bear the societal burden of managing family life alongside their careers.
- Challenging Rigid Administrative Practices: The Court notes that the State is constitutionally obligated to move away from creating structural and institutional barriers which keep spouses apart for long periods without justifiable reason. The Court decisively rules that objections based on convenience, tradition or rigid administrative practices cannot displace the constitutional obligation to facilitate marriage, family life, and the full and equal participation of women in public service.
- Critique of the "One-Dimensional Approach": The government's standard response that a civil servant has no vested right to a particular posting and must adjust to transfer orders is criticised as a "one-dimensional approach". This mindset expects married government employees to live apart for the duration of their service, treating transfer as a routine incident of service that does not, as a matter of policy, factor in the marriage or family life of the civil servant.
- Mandate for Sensitive Implementation: The Policy was specifically designed to tackle difficulties faced by married government employees and unmarried female government employees. The judgment compels the government to follow the Policy in letter and spirit, emphasising that the objective is to remove hardship and to discourage the continued practice of issuing transfer orders without thought or sensitivity to the requirements of married employees.
- Prioritising Female Needs: The development of the Policy itself shows an increasing recognition of women's specific needs in the service. Office Memorandums were issued specifically to facilitate the posting of unmarried female government employees at the residence of their family/parents, and to allow married female government employees to serve at the residence/posting of their husbands, even if the husband was not in government service.
Impact on Women and Civil Servants
By enforcing the implementation of the Policy as a constitutional obligation rather than a matter of administrative grace, the judgment seeks to eradicate the unwritten rule that service requirements inherently trump family needs. This is significant for women who are often told that separation is "just the way the service works".
The Court holds that the Policy establishes a legitimate expectation that married government employees be posted to the same location, preserving the family and the institution of marriage. The judgment affirms that transfer orders must be based on a lawful administrative process that balances the administrative requirements of the State with the needs and requirements of government employees.
The final decision, which sets aside the transfer order, reinforces that ignoring the Policy is unjustified, especially when it is designed to protect the institution of marriage and family life based on the hardships faced by spouses and unmarried female employees. The ruling ensures that the State promotes welfare and family life as the underlying consideration when issuing transfer orders.
Not only is this the first judgment on the Wedlock Policy, but it also contains a very important element that is not only pro-women but also pro-family. In a way, it affects all women who are told that this is the way the service works if they wish to work in the civil service.