SC, FCC differ on legal status of wedlock policy

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court and the Federal Constitutional Court have taken differing positions on the government’s wedlock policy, with the Supreme Court holding that it creates a legitimate expectation for married civil servants to be accommodated, while the FCC has ruled that it cannot be treated as a basis for indefinite posting or as a vested right.

In a recent 16-page judgment authored by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, the Supreme Court said the interpretation of beneficial rules, circulars and policies should follow the doctrine of beneficial construction so that measures meant to benefit a specific class are read liberally to achieve their purpose. The judgment said the wedlock policy creates a legitimate expectation for married civil servants and that any ambiguity should be resolved in favour of the intended beneficiaries.

"The policy creates a legitimate expectation for married civil servants that they will be accommodated rather than subjected to arbitrary deviation from the policy without any rhyme or reason. Any ambiguity should be resolved in the best interest of the intended beneficiaries,"

Justice Mazhar was part of a division bench that set aside a Federal Service Tribunal decision rejecting a petition by a female official of the Punjab Revenue Department over her transfer under the wedlock policy. The bench also directed the Supreme Court registrar’s office to send a copy of the judgment to the Punjab chief minister for implementation.

Case before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court said the dispute before it was limited to implementation of the wedlock policy issued under the directives of the Punjab chief minister. According to the judgment, the policy was framed on the basis that bringing spouses to the same duty station was conducive in view of the psychological and economic strain caused by separation.

The court noted that the Punjab additional advocate general had neither argued that the chief minister’s directives or circular were time-bound or no longer in force, nor offered any other logical reason for bypassing those directions while rejecting the petitioner’s transfer request. "Neither was it pleaded before us by the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, that the above directives or circular of the CM were time-bound or presently not in vogue, nor was any other logical reason placed as to why the clear directives of the CM were sidestepped while rejecting the transfer application of the petitioner."

Divergence highlighted by lawyer

Lawyer Hafiz Ahsaan Ahmed Khokhar said three important judicial pronouncements had recently been issued on the interpretation and legal status of the wedlock policy, including two by the Supreme Court and one by the FCC. He said these rulings showed a divergence of judicial opinion on key legal and policy questions.

According to Khokhar, the Supreme Court has expressly held in its judgments that the wedlock policy is not merely a guideline and gives rise to a legitimate expectation in favour of affected employees. He said the apex court’s view is that the policy is binding on executive authorities unless it is lawfully withdrawn or modified in line with constitutional requirements.

He said the FCC had adopted a different interpretative approach, treating the wedlock policy as a facilitative administrative arrangement for operational convenience and workforce management. In that view, he said, the policy does not create an enforceable right to permanent posting at any particular station and remains subject to the lawful exercise of transfer and posting powers by the competent authority.

Khokhar said the differing interpretations had created jurisprudential tension between the two constitutional fora over the legal character and enforceability of the policy. He added that the issue now required consideration within the framework of amended Article 189 of the Constitution, which deals with the binding nature and precedential authority of judicial decisions in the restructured constitutional hierarchy.

He said the FCC’s interpretation introduced a materially distinct legal perspective from that of the Supreme Court, raising questions of judicial consistency, constitutional harmony and institutional coherence. He added that until the constitutional ambiguity is authoritatively settled within the constitutional scheme, the legal status of the wedlock policy is likely to remain contested between the concepts of legitimate expectation and administrative facilitation. Lawyers believe that after the 27th Amendment, FCC jurisprudence is binding on the Supreme Court.