LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has declared that the Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment & Condition) of Service Rules, 1974, which provides employment to a widow of a civil servant, is discriminatory and offensive as it denies employment to a widower.

“Rule 17-A in its present form in so far as it denies employment to a widower is declared to be discriminatory and offensive to Articles 4, 25 and 27 of the Constitution and the respondents are directed to bring about suitable amendments in Rule 17-A so as to bring it in line with the constitutional mandate,” Justice Muhammad Shan Gul of the LHC, Multan bench, rules in a 33-page judgement.

Mustafa Siddique had filed a writ petition against the education department over its refusal to extend the same benefit to a widower as it does to a widow in terms of Rule 17-A of the PCS (Appointment & Condition) of Service Rules, 1974.

The petitioner argued that, prima facie, there was no legal warrant to deny the benefit afforded by this rule to a widower when the same rule was applicable in the case of a widow.

Seeks amendment, terming the law discriminatory ‘against men’

The petitioner’s deceased wife was a teacher at a secondary school.

Opposing the petition, a government law officer referred to the prevalent social set-up in Pakistan, stating that it was men who were bread earners in the country and not women.

Justice Gul, however, rejects this argument and observes that this is absolute rubbish in a country that has twice been led by a woman prime minister and it does not behove to the provincial government to adopt such a lame stance.

The judge notes that the timing of introduction of the said rule is very relevant, i.e. 1974, which makes us move over to look at the historical perspective.

“It is a fact that at the time of introduction of Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment & Condition) of Service Rules, 1974 the country had not seen or encountered Benazir Bhutto and Malala Yousufzai was not even born then,” he adds.

The judge rules that the presumption that women are generally not bread earners is not correct and the blanket embargo placed on a widower in terms of the impugned rule is indeed harsh and disproportionate. He remarks that the rule under challenge, in its present form and manner, requires a rethink on the part of the executive because it is discriminatory and, therefore, hit by Articles 4, 25(3) and 27 of the Constitution.

He says the executive needs to suitably amend the rule.

Declaring the impugned rule discriminatory, Justice Gul has also directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate employment in terms of Rule 17-A.

Published in Dawn, November 6th, 2021