SC upholds ‘wedlock policy’ for spouse postings at same station
0
• Two-judge bench sides with a govt employee facing transfer away from family
• Stresses governance must remain ‘people-centric’
• Asks state to avoid causing ‘psychological and social strains on families’
• Reinforces 1998 policy to address ‘real hardship’ for employee couples
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Wednesday affirmed that married government employees, in the public interest, should be granted the benefit of working together at the same station of duty, coming to the rescue of a civil servant facing a transfer that would separate him from his family.
“While we recognise the fact that a civil servant does not have a vested right to demand transfer to any specific location, the ‘Wedlock Policy’ requires that genuine hardship faced by spouses, be considered at the time of transfer, unless absolutely necessary,” Justice Ayesha A. Malik observed in the nine-page verdict she authored.
Justice Malik was a member of a two-judge Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Munib Akhtar. The bench had taken up an appeal from Mubashir Iqbal Zafar against a Sept 21, 2023, decision by the Federal Service Tribunal (FST) in Islamabad that rejected his plea.
In the judgement, Justice Malik emphasised that the core purpose of the state is centred on the well-being of its citizens.
“The foundation of governance lies in the unwavering commitment to preserve and protect the welfare of the people,” the verdict said. “Every policy and administrative action must be rooted in the best interest of the public, ensuring that governance remains people-centric.”
Justice Malik further stressed that laws and policies created for the public good must be followed and not disregarded for reasons that contradict their original intent.
The case involved Mubashir Iqbal Zafar, an Assistant Health Inspector (BPS-5) who was transferred on Feb 8, 2021, from Abdul Hakim in District Khanewal to Dera Nawab Sahib in District Bahawalpur.
Mr Zafar informed the competent authority of his inability to accept the transfer, citing significant personal hardship.
His wife is a government school teacher (BPS-14) employed at GGES Jinnah Colony in Abdul Hakim and is also a heart patient requiring continuous medical care. The couple has two minor children who need supervision, and Mr Zafar himself is diabetic and requires due care.
He requested to either retain his posting in Abdul Hakim or be transferred to a nearby station that would allow him to manage his domestic responsibilities. This request was denied on March 30, 2021.
Mr Zafar then approached the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed his case on Sept 21, 2023.
The FST ruled that a civil servant has no vested right to a posting at a particular place of choice and that transfers are made at the discretion of the authority in the public interest, thus not warranting interference.
Despite his reliance on medical certificates for both his own and his wife’s ailments and repeated requests to be posted at the same station under the government’s own “wedlock policy”, his appeals were rejected.
The court’s decision hinged on an Office Memorandum from the Establishment Division, issued on May 13, 1998, which established the policy to address the hardships faced by married government employees posted at different locations.
The SC ruled that the wedlock policy “was designed to remove the hardship of separation due to transfer and posting in a marriage or within a family and places a heavy burden on the state to facilitate government employees, their marriage and family life”.
The judgement stated that this means the state must make a sincere effort to adhere to its policy and its objectives.
“Instead, we find that the intent is the exact opposite of what the policy sets out,” the judgement regretted, noting the common practice where married government employees are expected to live apart as a routine condition of service.
They are reminded of their obligation to follow transfer orders, which often fail to consider their family life.
Justice Malik emphasised 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”.
The court noted that this principle encapsulates the state’s goal to foster family-sensitive transfer practices designed to alleviate hardship.
The judgement emphasised that as a matter of propriety, an effort should be made to follow the policy to avoid “psychological, economical and social strains on families”, adding that the state is bound to perform its duties in line with the directives of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court ultimately allowed Mr Zafar’s appeal and set aside the FST order.
Published in Dawn, December 11th, 2025
