ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has ruled that the Wedlock Policy upholds the constitutional protections in Articles 34 and 35 by requiring administrative discretions to account for marital and family needs in transfers, mitigating the hardships of unnecessary spousal separation.
A two-member bench of the apex court comprising Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Ayesha A Malik issued judgement in a case titled Mubashir Iqbal Zafar verses Ministry of Defence through its secretary.
The petitioner had filed a petition in the apex court against the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, judgement dated 21.09.2023, where the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
Mubashir Iqbal Zafar had contended that he was diabetic, while his wife, a Grade-14 employee posted in Abdul Hakim, suffered from a heart condition, verified by a medical board. He had further submitted that their two young children also require parental care, making the family’s presence in Abdul Hakim essential. Despite this, he had submitted that the transfer order was issued and upheld by the tribunal and other authorities.
The Supreme Court, after converting the petition in an appeal, set aside the tribunal judgement and transfer order dated 08.02.2021 to the extent of the petitioner. “The [Wedlock] Policy provides an administrative framework intended to alleviate the hardship faced by married government employees,” said the nine-page judgement authored by Justice Ayesha.
The court noted that the policy serves as the guiding methodology provided to government departments while deciding on issues of transfer and posting to keep in mind cases where a husband and wife are both government employees, such that they be located at the same station for duty.
“The policy does not create an absolute right, but establishes a legitimate expectation that married government employees can be posted to the same location thereby preserving the family and the institution of marriage,” it said.
The court ruled that the policy, in essence, requires that spouses posted at one station should not be disturbed without compelling reason of public interest and further that a request for extension beyond permissible limits may be considered with compassion, in the public interest.
“This encapsulates the objective of the State to promote family sensitive transfer practices which are designed to address the hardship faced by married government employees and unmarried female government employees,” said the judgement.
The court held that Article 35 of the Constitution requires the State to protect the marriage, the family, the mother and the child and Article 34 of the Constitution requires the State to take necessary steps to ensure the full participation of women in all spheres of national life.
