Islamabad:
In a historical verdict, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to compassionate employment granted to a widow under the attendance package of the Prime Minister cannot be terminated solely by his subsequent new new marriage.
A five -page judgment created by Judge Syed Mansoor Ali Shah confirmed the decision of the Superior Court of Lahore, reaffirming that financial independence was not extended to women, but a cornerstone of their dignity and full participation in public life.
“We reaffirm that the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (‘Constitution’), ensures the fundamental rights for people as equal citizens, not as appendages of patriarchal roles or marriage identities,” reads the trial.
“Women are not defined by men in their lives; they are autonomous and rights individuals,” he emphasized.
The Superior Court said that denying a woman the right to employment based on her new marriage is a shameless reinforcement of patriarchal control, which seeks to subordinate her legal identity to social expectations.
“Financial independence is not a concession to women, it is the basis of their constitutional agency, dignity and full participation in public life. The law must dismantle, not perpetuate, the structures that reduce women to citizens secondary to the eyes of society.”
The case arose from the difficult situation of a defendant whose husband, an employee of the Income Tax Department, died in service on February 14, 2006.
Later she was appointed employee of the lower division (LDC) with a two -year contract on May 26, 2010, under the attendance package of the Prime Minister for the families of the employees of the deceased government. The contract extended several times.
However, their services were terminated through an order dated January 4, 2016, issued by the Secretary (MGT) IR-V, Federal Income Board (HRM), Islamabad. The base was a memorandum of the office (OM) dated December 15, 2015, which argued that a widow becomes inelegable for a compassionate job when married again.
Looking for reparation, the respondent approached the LHC, who ruled in his favor. The FBR then challenged the decision before the Supreme Court.
The Bank of the Division of the Apex court assumed the crucial question: can the right to compassionate employment be withdrawn under the attendance package of the prime minister simply because a widow has married again?
The verdict dismantles the justification that supports the OM, the brand “manifestly discriminatory”, since it is directed to the widows, spouses of deceased employees of the government, for disqualification when marrying again, while saving widowers.
