Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 4, 9, 14, 25(1), 25(2), 27, 35

Law: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989

Section: 10(4)

Summary:

(a) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989---

----R.10(4)---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 14, 25 & 27---Compassionate appointment---Married daughter of deceased civil servant---Discrimination--Principle of intelligible differentia---Appellant was daughter of deceased civil servant and was appointed under Rule 10(4) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989---Appointment of appellant was terminated after she contracted marriage---Validity---Reasonable classification must be founded on intelligible differentia and must bear rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by law---Exclusion of married daughters, despite Rule 10(4) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989, itself is inclusive and silence on marital status lacks any rational basis---No intelligible differentia is discernible between a married son and a married daughter that would justify such exclusion in light of the underlying purpose of Rule 10(4) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989, which is to provide compassionate economic relief to bereaved family of a deceased or incapacitated civil servant---Such arbitrary classification is not only unreasonable but plainly unconstitutional, offending the guarantees of equality (Article 25), non-discrimination in public service (Article 27), and the right to dignity (Article 14)---Such act of authorities had undermined expectations of deceased civil servants whose families were assured of lawful security under the compassionate appointment framework--Supreme Court declared clarification of authorities and letter dated 28-04-2023, whereby married daughters were excluded from compassionate appointment under Rule 10(4) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989, to be discriminatory, ultra vires, issued without lawful authority, and incompatible with Constitutional guarantees and international legal obligations---Supreme Court directed respondent/authorities to restore appointment of appellant with all back-benefits and set aside judgment passed by Service Tribunal---Supreme Court reaffirmed that all judicial and administrative authorities bear a Constitutional responsibility to adopt gender-sensitive and gender-neutral language; that this was not a mere formality but reflected a substantive commitment to the values of dignity, equality, and autonomy guaranteed to all citizens under Articles 14, 25, and 27 of the Constitution---Supreme Court observed that the Judiciary must lead by example, ensuring that the words used to interpret and apply law did not themselves had become instruments of exclusion---Appeal was allowed.

S.G.G. Edgar, Craies on Statute Law (Universal Law Publishing Co, 7th Edition, 1971); Muhammad Nadeem Arif v. IG Police, Punjab 2011 SCMR 408; Federal Public Service Commission v. Altaf Hussain 2015 SCMR 581; Muhammad Bashir Limited v. Government of Pakistan 2015 SCMR 630; Province of Punjab v. Kanwal Rashid 2021 SCMR 730; Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 1910; Union of India v. Majji Jangammayya AIR 1977 SC 757; B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka AIR 1979 SC 1676; P.D. Aggarwal v. State of U.P. AIR 1987 SC