SC says ‘Wedlock Policy’ must be complied with

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court held that “Wedlock Policy”, being a Policy of the State, must be complied with, and every policy and administrative action must be rooted in the best interest of the public.

The Policy has been in place since 1998, providing that a husband and wife in government service should, as far as possible, be facilitated in matters of transfer and posting to avoid hardship.

The judgment authored by Justice Ayesha Malik said the Policy was designed with the intent to protect the institution of marriage and the family based on the hardships faced by spouses and unmarried female employees when transferred to different places. There is nothing in the Policy that limits the timeframe within which a transfer can be maintained. It promotes welfare and family life as the underlying consideration while issuing transfer orders.

Its implementation ensures that the State can function effectively and ensure that all government employees can work with dignity within the ambit of their family and marriage. As such, we find absolutely no basis in ignoring the Policy and proceeding to transfer the Petitioner routinely.

The transfer order dated 08.02.2021 is; therefore, contrary to the Wedlock Policy, which, being a policy of the state, must be complied with.

SC Full Court unanimously approves updated Rules 2025

Justice Ayesha further wrote that the foundation of governance lies in the unwavering commitment to preserve and protect the welfare of the people. Every policy and administrative action must be rooted in the best interests of the public, ensuring that governance remains people-centric. This is the core purpose of the State. Laws and policies are designed for the betterment of the people and should be adhered to, not ignored based on the reasons that negate the objective of the law or policy itself.

According to the details, petitioner Mubashir Iqbal Zafar, an Assistant Health Inspector (AHI) (BPS-5), was transferred to Dera Nawab Sahib, District Bahawalpur, on 8 February 2021, from Abdul Hakim to District Khanewal.

He informed the competent authority that he was facing difficulty in complying with the transfer order because his wife, a government school teacher (BPS-14) posted at GGES Jinnah Colony, Abdul Hakim, District Khanewal, is a heart patient who requires continuous medical treatment. He further stated that he has two minor children who need supervision, and that he himself is a diabetic patient.

Accordingly, he requested that he be allowed to retain his posting at Abdul Hakim, District Khanewal, or, as an alternative, be transferred to a nearby station so that he could attend to his domestic responsibilities. This request was turned down on 30 March 2021, after which the employee filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which was also dismissed on 21 September 2023.

The impugned judgment rejected the Petitioner’s case on the ground that a civil servant has no vested right to claim posting or transfer to a particular place of choice, nor can he insist on continuing to hold a specific post at a specific station. It held that matters of posting and transfer, lie within the discretion of the competent authority, are to be exercised in the public interest, and generally do not warrant judicial interference. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed the instant CPLA.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025