Pakistan SC Upholds Married Daughters’ Right to Compassionate Jobs
Last Updated on April 7, 2025 by Athi Venkatesh
The Supreme Court of Pakistan has set aside a judgment by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal that denied compassionate appointments to married daughters. The Tribunal had ruled that married daughters become the responsibility of their husbands and are ineligible for such jobs. The apex court called this view factually wrong, legally flawed, and deeply patriarchal.
The bench, comprising Justices Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Athar Minallah, ruled that such language reflects outdated stereotypes and violates constitutional rights. They said women are autonomous legal persons, not dependents of their husbands. The Court stressed that judicial and administrative authorities must use gender-neutral language to avoid reinforcing discrimination.
The Court cited Aparna Bhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh from India, where stereotypical reasoning in a bail order was struck down. It held that how the law is written matters as much as the outcomes it delivers. The judges said married status does not erase a woman’s right to equality under Articles 14, 25, and 27 of the Constitution.
In this case, petitioner Zahida Parveen was appointed under Rule 10(4) of the 1989 KP Civil Servants Rules after her father’s death. Later, her appointment was cancelled based on a government clarification that excluded married daughters unless separated or dependent on parents. The Court found this to be discriminatory and ultra vires the Constitution.
It held that the rule uses inclusive language—“one of the children”—with no mention of gender or marital status. Excluding married daughters while allowing married sons fails the test of reasonable classification. The Court called this a revival of the discredited doctrine of coverture, where a woman’s legal identity merged into her husband’s.
The judgment affirmed that women remain equal citizens after marriage. It said financial independence is a constitutional right, not a privilege. The Court also noted that Islamic law upholds a woman’s right to property and autonomy, making any presumption of dependence religiously and legally invalid.
