ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Monday observed that unless there were insurmountable hurdles, the couples’ request for posting at one station was not only required to be considered with compassion and kindness but also to put into effect the policy for judicious implementation.
A two-member bench of the apex court, comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Musarrat Hilali, announced its judgment on an appeal filed against the judgment passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore on January 17, 2023.
Accepting the appeal of the petitioner, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the PST and the order passed by Senior Member Board of Revenue, Punjab dated 03.03.2021. The court directed the Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore to decide the transfer application of the petitioner afresh within 15 days taking into account the Office Memorandum dated 15.06.1988, issued by the Services, General, Administration and Information Department, Government of Punjab pursuant to the directions of Punjab chief minister and communicate the order to the petitioner.
“Even if no post is available at the spouse’s place of posting, sincere and meaningful efforts must be made to implement the wedlock policy in letter and spirit by accommodating the married couple through temporary transfer, permanent transfer, absorption, or deputation within the same or another department, instead of rejecting the request merely on the pretext of unavailability of a post”, says the 16-page judgment, authored by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar.
Petitioner Naheeda Aziz had filed an appeal with the apex court against the judgment passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal Lahore. She was working as assistant (BPS-14) in the Board of Revenue posted at Lahore. Naheeda sought her transfer to Faisalabad under the wedlock policy because her husband, a Clerk (BPS-11) in the Revenue Department, was posted there. However, the request was rejected, and the Punjab Service Tribunal also dismissed her appeal.
The court noted that during the course of hearing, her counsel relied on the Government Notification dated 15.06.1988, issued under Section 23 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, which introduced the wedlock policy to reduce family hardship and improve efficiency.
Similarly, the court noted that the additional advocate general argued that under Rule 11 of the Punjab Civil Servants (A&CS) Rules, 1974 and the Punjab Revenue Department (District Cadre) Ministerial Service Rules, 2011, transfer was not permissible because both postings belonged to separate units.
He maintained that the wedlock policy could not override service rules, but suggested that the matter be reconsidered by the competent authority. The court recalled that in the case of Mrs. Zeenat Ahmed (supra), one of them (Muhammad Ali Mazhar-J) already dilated upon the issue of wedlock policy per extensum and also discussed different Office Memorandums (OMs) or instructions contained in the Establishment Code (Estacode).
In point of fact, the policy mitigates and alleviates the socio-economic problems and hardships faced by husbands and wives in government service due to posting at different stations of the duty”, says the judgment adding that it does not only facilitate posting of husbands and wives at the same station but the posting of unmarried female civil servants at the place of residence of their parents/families”.
The court further noted that the judgment also quoted Article 35 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 (Constitution) in which as principle of policy it was provided that the State shall protect the marriage, the family, the mother and the child and according to them, the wedlock policy explicated or was itinerant around this principle of policy which was intended to ensure the benefit of a family.
“Unless there are insurmountable hurdles, requests of the husband and the wife to be posted at one station are not only required to be considered with an element of compassion and kindness but also to put into effect the policy for judicious implementation”, says the judgment.
The court held that if spouses employed in different government departments are posted in separate cities, it causes mental stress, affects family life, and reduces work efficiency. To address this issue, Bill No. 32 of 2023, “The Protection of Family Life and Wedlock Act,” was presented in the National Assembly to ensure protection of family life and promote women’s participation in national development in line with Articles 25(3), 34, and 35 of the Constitution”, says the judgment.
The court further noted that the Bill aims to provide a supportive working environment for married couples so they can live together and raise their children in better social and educational conditions.
