The case Mubashir Iqbal Zafar v. Ministry of Defence, through its secretary, was recently decided by the Honorable Ms. Justice Ayesha A. Malik regarding the implementation of the Wedlock Policy 1998 of the Government.
The main facts are as follows: Mubashir Iqbal Zafar was working as an Assistant Health Inspector (BPS-5), while his wife was a Teacher (BPS-14). He requested that his transfer be stopped because his wife was posted in Abdul Hakeem, and both his wife’s and his own health were not in good condition. He asked to be allowed to work at the same place as his wife.
Despite this, he was transferred from Abdul Hakeem, District Khanewal, to Dera Nawab Sahib, District Bahawalpur, on 08 February 2021. He also cited the Wedlock Policy 1998 to support his request. However, his application was rejected without consideration. It is important to note that his wife is a heart patient and urgently needed her loved ones close to her. The authorities did not take this human factor into account when rejecting his application.
Then the petitioner filed the case in the Federal Services Tribunal (FST), which is the right appellate forum in this case. The FST also dismissed his petition on the ground that a civil servant does not have the right to choose his posting himself.
The petitioner also argued that the government’s Wedlock Policy of 1998 clearly states that husband and wife who are both government employees should be posted in the same city to reduce hardship. He said that medical cases must be given top priority. He also submitted medical certificates for himself and his wife. He pointed out that his wife was allowed to remain posted in Abdul Hakim on medical grounds in 2023. On the other hand, the government argued that the petitioner must follow his transfer order, that he cannot choose where he wants to work, and that he has already benefited from the Wedlock Policy for many years. The case reached the Supreme Court as an Appeal.
The Court examined the Wedlock Policy, which consists of several government notifications issued since 1998, and found that the purpose of the Policy is to reduce difficulties faced by married government employees posted in different cities. It requires departments to consider requests from spouses to be posted in the same station, especially when there are medical issues. It also applies to unmarried female government employees so they can remain near their families. In 2012, these protections were inserted into the Civil Servants Rules. The Court explained that while the Policy does not give an absolute right, it does create a legitimate expectation that married employees will be posted together unless there is a strong reason not to.
The Court emphasized that the Policy is connected to constitutional principles, especially Article 35, which requires the State to protect marriage and family, and Article 34, which requires the State to support women’s participation in national life. The State, therefore, has a duty to follow its own Policy and to avoid creating unnecessary hardships for families. Transfer orders must be fair and must take into account genuine family needs and medical issues and without revenge policies.
In this case, the Court repeatedly asked the government why the petitioner could not be allowed to remain in Abdul Hakim, especially since both the petitioner and his wife have serious medical conditions. The government failed to provide any strong or specific reason for transferring him. The only reason given was that he had already benefited from the Policy for many years, which the Court found to be insufficient. The Court noted that the Policy does not limit how long spouses may remain posted together and that its main purpose is to protect family life.
The Court concluded that the transfer order dated 08.02.2021 was issued without considering the Wedlock Policy 1998 or the medical circumstances of the petitioner and his wife. Therefore, the Civil Petition was converted into an appeal and allowed. The judgment of the Tribunal was set aside, and the transfer order against the petitioner was cancelled.
This judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan addresses the tension between administrative discretion in posting and transfer of civil servants and the constitutional and policy-based protections meant to safeguard family life. The Court critically examines the Federal Service Tribunal’s decision, which had dismissed the petitioner’s appeal on the traditional ground that civil servants have no right to choose their place of posting. The Supreme Court challenges this narrow, conventional approach by placing the Wedlock Policy within a broader constitutional and social framework.
The Court’s analysis moves beyond simple service rules and focuses on the purpose and spirit of the Wedlock Policy, which has existed since 1998 and has been strengthened through subsequent government notifications and amendments to the Civil Servants Rules. The Policy does not create an absolute right to a particular posting, but it establishes a legitimate expectation that married government employees should be posted together unless there is a compelling public interest reason to separate them. The Court observes that the State itself designed this Policy to reduce the psychological, social, and economic hardships caused by separating spouses. Therefore, routine administrative reasoning is not enough to justify a transfer that disregards these protections.
A key element of the judgment is its reliance on constitutional principles—specifically Article 35 (protection of marriage and family) and Article 34 (participation of women in national life). By linking the Wedlock Policy to these constitutional directives, the Court reframes transfer and posting considerations not as mere administrative conveniences but as matters tied to fundamental social values and State responsibilities. The decision criticizes the government’s one-dimensional argument that transfer is simply an “incident of service.” The Court finds this reasoning outdated, rigid, and disconnected from constitutional obligations. It highlights that administrative discretion must operate within a framework of fairness, compassion, and family-friendly policies. Then, the question should be asked as to why this “Wedlock Policy in 1998” was made? Or it was made for higher rank employees or for everyone?
The Court also notes a structural problem in government practice: although the Wedlock Policy exists, it is inconsistently applied, often treated as optional, and overridden by routine transfers without meaningful justification. In this specific case, the government failed to provide any substantive grounds for transferring the petitioner, particularly given the medical issues of both spouses. The only justification offered—that the petitioner had already benefited from the Policy for many years—was dismissed as insufficient and contrary to the Policy’s intent. The judgment thus critiques not only the specific transfer order but also the broader administrative culture that undermines welfare-oriented policies.
In conclusion, the Court sets aside the Tribunal’s judgment and annuls the petitioner’s transfer order, asserting that the Wedlock Policy must be implemented in letter and spirit. The decision reinforces that administrative authority is not absolute and must be exercised in a manner consistent with constitutional values, humane considerations, and the legitimate expectations created by State policies. The ruling has broader implications, signaling a shift toward more family-sensitive governance and emphasizing the need for transparency and fairness in civil service management.
It is very concerning that the government is not implementing its own policies, such as the Wedlock Policy, which was introduced back in 1998. The government should take necessary steps to properly enforce this policy and prepare a list of all employees, both federal and provincial, so that employees can get relief under the Wedlock Policy. Furthermore, the government should take necessary steps to properly enforce this policy and compile a list of all employees, both federal and provincial, so that they can be eligible for relief under the Wedlock Policy.
