Ties Civil Service Transfers to Constitutional Family Rights Under 1998 Marriage Policy
Pakistan’s Supreme Court has ruled that all government departments must follow the 1998 marriage policy, ruling 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 filed by Mubashir Iqbal Zafar, an Assistant Health Inspector (BPS-5), against the Ministry of Defense 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 difficulties. He is a 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 stay in Abdul Hakim or be transferred nearby was rejected on 30 March 2021, and the Federal Service Tribunal in Islamabad later dismissed his appeal.
The Supreme Court observed that the transfer had been issued in a “routine manner” without any compelling reason of public interest. This, it said, violated the marriage 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 marriage policy
The marriage policy requires the state to consider the challenges faced by married couples and unmarried female employees and to place them near their spouses or families, unless there is a strong public interest reason not to.
The court recognized that an official “does not have an absolute right to be transferred to a particular place.” However, it emphasized that the purpose of the policy is to reduce the burden of separation and protect family life, obliging the state to follow it. The court also noted that the government’s “one-dimensional approach” often ignores this goal, treating transfers as routine and expecting employees to adapt without considering their family circumstances.
The ruling stated that the policy is “designed to reduce hardship, promote family stability, and promote greater participation of women in public service.” It warned against using “convenience, tradition or rigid administrative practice” to override this duty. The court added that the government must follow the policy fully, both in letter and spirit.
“Instead, we find that the intention is the opposite of what the policy indicates,” Justice Malik noted, adding that administrative actions must be rooted in the public’s best interest, ensuring that governance remains people-centered.
Legal experts welcomed the judgment as an important step towards gender-sensitive and family-focused governance. “This judgment shows that the gender and family lens is not only limited to women but benefits the entire family,” said Nida Usman, lawyer and founder of Women in Law Initiative Pakistan.
Medical emergency
The court found the government’s reasoning that Zafar could not remain in a position continuously “unfounded and inadequate” in light of his medical and family circumstances. In setting aside the transfer order, the court ordered all government departments to treat the marriage policy as a binding directive to avoid “psychological, economic and social burdens on families” caused by orders passed “without consideration or sensitivity.”
Usman added that Zafar’s relief shows that the gender and family perspective does not only apply to women but to families as a whole.
Judge Ayesha A. Malik has ruled on family and women’s rights, including cases related to Khula and marital abuse.
Read more: SC strengthens women’s autonomy in khula, recognizes psychological abuse
In a judgment announced in October i 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 marital abuse must have no witnesses, affirmed that Khula is a woman’s personal right which cannot be given without her express consent, and ensured that the petitioner would keep her dowry, including gold, money and property.
It also restored the Family Court’s decree of dissolution on the grounds of second marriage and psychological cruelty, emphasizing the need for objective and respectful legal reasoning. The ruling sets an important precedent for cases involving Khula, psychological abuse and women’s autonomy in marriage.
