Islamabad:
The Supreme Court has ruled that a person’s daughter does not become inelegable for government work under his father’s fee after his marriage.
“A woman’s marriage is not related to her financial independence. Just as a child can be hired under her father’s work fee after marriage, just like a daughter,” Judge Syed Mansoor Ali Shah said.
Judge Shah led a division bank that Judge Athar Minallah also included, which on Monday listened to a petition presented by a Zahida Pepeen against the decision of a government department not to hire her after the death of her father in view of her marriage.
During the hearing, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) cited a decision of former justice president Qazi Faez Isa, who said that the children of government employees cannot receive work preferentially.
Judge Shah declared that the decision of the SC in question is 2024, while the current case the above. “The failure does not apply retrospectively. How can you say goodbye to women after hiring her?”
The general lawyer argued that, since the woman is married, she is no longer eligible for employment instead of her late father. Judge Shah asked the state law officer where he is written in the law that if a daughter marries, becomes inevable for employment after the death of his father.
Later, the bank accepted Perveen’s request, noting that a detailed sentence on the economic independence of women and the ruling of the Supreme Court on the quota of the children later would be issued later.
The same bank also accepted the request of a person who did not receive a job in the KP police department just because it was once involved in a drug case.
During the hearing, the general defender of the KP informed the Court that the petitioner had been accused under the Anti-Terrorism Law in 2021 for allegedly having “ice” -Methaphetamine.
He said that, since the petitioner had a criminal case against him, he no longer maintained a “good character” under the rules of the police and was not suitable for the recruitment of the police.
Judge Athar Minallah asked why the person should be punished for the rest of his life when he has been discharged from the case.
“It is an absurd logic that even if a person is not proven guilty, his eligibility is still questioned. If the petitioner’s crime was so serious, why was he acquitted during the investigation stage?” Judge Shah asked.
The general lawyer declared that it was the Department of Prosecutor’s Office that acquitted him and not the Police Department.
Justice Minallah questioned why a person should suffer consequences for the rest of his life if he has been acquitted in one case. The court approved the request for recruitment of the petitioner as agent.
