The Registrar,

SBK-Women University,
Quetta.

Subject: RECONSIDERATION OF THE CASE OF APPOINTMENT UNDER

WEDLOCK POLICY IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUPREME COURT’S
JUDGMENT TO AVOID CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS.
R/Mam,
Reference your letter No.43/Estt/ SBKWU/19/755 dated 12-07-2019 (received
by me on 22-07-2019) whereby I have been instructed to join back the University, as,
my request for absorption/appointment was refused vide SBKWU’s letter dated
18-01-2019.

2. It is humbly submitted that the reason for not allowing absorption as mentioned
in the letter dated 18-01-2019 is based on some misunderstanding. In the Supreme
Court’s judgment passed in the case of Mr. Ali Azhar Baloch (2015-SCMR-456)
appointments/ absorptions under the wedlock policy are duly protected. The relevant
extracts of the Supreme Court’s judgment (paragraph 172-174-copy attached for
ready reference as Annex-I) are reproduced below:-

“Crl. Review Petition No.38/2014

(Mrs. Asma Shahid Siddiqui, in person)
172. The Petitioner, in person, submitted that she was serving in the Forest
Department, Government of Punjab as Forest Ranger in BS-16 on regular
basis. On 11.2.1997, her services were transferred to the Forest Department,
Sindh Government, in the same grade while placing her seniority at the bottom.
She was posted as Forest Officer in BS-16 in the Department with the consent
of both the Provincial Governments and subsequently, she was absorbed in
the Sindh Province in terms of the provisions of Sl. No.4 of the ESTACODE
which deal with the wedlock policy. Her absorption in Sindh Forest Department
was made in conformity with Section 24 of the Act read with Rule 9-A of the
Rules of 1974. The Petitioner has stated that she had been serving as District
Forest Officer in the Province of Sindh for the last 17 years and she was
repatriated to the Province of Punjab in compliance with the judgment under
review.
173. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view
that her case is an exception to the findings recorded by us in the judgment
under review as she was transferred and absorbed in terms of the provisions
of ESTACODE on the basis of wedlock policy, in the same Basic Scale and
Department in Sindh, in which she was serving in the Province of Punjab since
1997. Therefore, she was wrongly de-notified. We, accordingly, direct the
Chief Secretary, Sindh to immediately withdraw the notification of her
repatriation and restore her posting to her original position in the
Province of Sindh as if she was never repatriated. She shall be given all the
salaries and perks of the intervening period. The compliance report shall be
submitted by the Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh, which shall be placed
for our perusal in Chambers within two weeks from the judgment.
174. For the aforesaid reasons, the Criminal Review Petition No.38/2014, is
allowed in the above terms.”

3. My case is identical to the case of Mrs. Asma Shahid Siddiqui in whose favour
the Supreme Court passed the above judgment. I was posted in PTDC under wedlock
policy vide Establishment Division’s Notification dated 17-04-2018. PTDC showed
willingness to permanently absorb me under the wedlock policy. However, the
University management erroneously raised objections on the basis of the Supreme
Court’s judgment, which was in fact, in favour of those appointed under wedlock
policy. My case is thus required to be reconsidered in the light of paragraphs 172-174
of the same judgment reproduced above.

4. Attention is also invited to the following direction of the honorable Court in the
same judgment:-

“This judgment shall also be sent to the Chief Secretaries of all the Provinces
as well as the Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan,
Islamabad, with the direction that they shall streamline the civil service structure
in light of the principles laid down in this judgment.”

As mentioned above, one of the principles laid down in the judgment is in favour of
the employees working on wedlock policy. It was in that context that Establishment
Division retained my services in Federal Government in the light of observations made
by the Honorable Court. So, the violation of that principle would amount to contempt
of the Court.

5. It is therefore humbly requested that my case may kindly be revisited in the light
of the Supreme Court’s judgment and necessary NOC for my appointment in Federal
Government under wedlock policy may kindly be issued. Needless to mention that any
adverse action against me may amount to contempt of the Supreme Court in view of
clear order in favor of women performing duties under wedlock policy.

(Bilqees Fatima)
Manager, PTDC,
Government of Pakistan,
Rawalpindi
Dated: 26-07-2019

Copy for information to:

 The Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad.
 The Secretary, Cabinet Division, Islamabad.
 Additional Secretary, Governor Secretariat, Quetta, Balochistan.
 The Vice Chancellor, SBKWU, Quetta.
 MD, PTDC, Rawalpindi.
The Registrar,
SBK-Women University,
Quetta.

Subject: RECONSIDERATION OF THE CASE OF APPOINTMENT UNDER

WEDLOCK POLICY IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUPREME COURT’S
JUDGMENT TO AVOID CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS.
R/Mam,
Reference your letter No.43/Estt/ SBKWU/19/755 dated 12-07-2019 (received
by me on 22-07-2019) whereby I have been instructed to join back the University, as,
my request for permanent absorption was refused vide letter dated 18-01-2019.

2. It is humbly submitted that the reason for not allowing absorption/appointment

as mentioned in the letter dated 18-01-2019 is based on some misunderstanding. In
the Supreme Court’s judgment passed in the case of Mr. Ali Azhar Baloch (2015-
SCMR-456) appointments/ absorptions under the wedlock policy are duly protected.
The relevant extracts of the Supreme Court’s judgment (paragraph 172-174-copy
attached for ready reference as Annex-I) are reproduced below:-

“Crl. Review Petition No.38/2014

(Mrs. Asma Shahid Siddiqui, in person)

172. The Petitioner, in person, submitted that she was serving in the Forest
Department, Government of Punjab as Forest Ranger in BS-16 on regular
basis. On 11.2.1997, her services were transferred to the Forest Department,
Sindh Government, in the same grade while placing her seniority at the bottom.
She was posted as Forest Officer in BS-16 in the Department with the consent
of both the Provincial Governments and subsequently, she was absorbed in
the Sindh Province in terms of the provisions of Sl. No.4 of the ESTACODE
which deal with the wedlock policy. Her absorption in Sindh Forest Department
was made in conformity with Section 24 of the Act read with Rule 9-A of the
Rules of 1974. The Petitioner has stated that she had been serving as District
Forest Officer in the Province of Sindh for the last 17 years and she was
repatriated to the Province of Punjab in compliance with the judgment under
review.
173. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view
that her case is an exception to the findings recorded by us in the judgment
under review as she was transferred and absorbed in terms of the provisions
of ESTACODE on the basis of wedlock policy, in the same Basic Scale and
Department in Sindh, in which she was serving in the Province of Punjab since
1997. Therefore, she was wrongly de-notified. We, accordingly, direct the
Chief Secretary, Sindh to immediately withdraw the notification of her
repatriation and restore her posting to her original position in the
Province of Sindh as if she was never repatriated. She shall be given all the
salaries and perks of the intervening period. The compliance report shall be
submitted by the Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh, which shall be placed
for our perusal in Chambers within two weeks from the judgment.
174. For the aforesaid reasons, the Criminal Review Petition No.38/2014, is
allowed in the above terms.”
3. My case is identical to the case of Mrs. Asma Shahid Siddiqui in whose favour
the Supreme Court passed the above judgment. I was posted in PTDC under wedlock
policy vide Establishment Division’s Notification dated 17-04-2018. PTDC showed
willingness to permanently absorb me under the wedlock policy. However, the
University management erroneously raised objections on the basis of the Supreme
Court’s judgment, which was in fact, in favour of those appointed under wedlock
policy. My case is thus required to be reconsidered in the light of paragraphs 172-174
of the same judgment reproduced above.

4. Attention is also invited to the following direction of the honorable Court in the
same judgment:-

“This judgment shall also be sent to the Chief Secretaries of all the Provinces
as well as the Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan,
Islamabad, with the direction that they shall streamline the civil service structure
in light of the principles laid down in this judgment.”

As mentioned above, one of the principles laid down in the judgment is in favour of
the employees working on wedlock policy. It was in that context that Establishment
Division retained my services in Federal Government in the light of observations made
by the Honorable Court. So, the violation of that principle would amount to contempt
of the Court.

5. It is therefore humbly requested that my case may kindly be revisited in the light
of the Supreme Court’s judgment and necessary NOC for my appointment in Federal
Government under wedlock policy may kindly be issued. Needless to mention that any
adverse action against me may amount to contempt of the Supreme Court in view of
clear order in favor of women performing duties under wedlock policy.

(Bilqees Fatima)
Manager, PTDC,
Government of Pakistan,
Rawalpindi
Dated: 26-07-2019

Copy for information to:

 The Vice Chancellor, SBKWU, Quetta.
 Additional Secretary, Governor Secretariat, Quetta, Balochistan.
 MD, PTDC, Rawalpindi.
 Section Officer (E-VII/OMG-II), Establishment Division, Islamabad.
 Section Officer (Org-III), Cabinet Division, Islamabad.
With profound respect, it is submitted that the undersigned was allowed deputation
from Sardar Buhadar Khan (SBK) Women University, Quetta to the Federal
Government with effect from 25-10-2011 under “Wedlock Policy” as the undersigned’s
husband was already serving as Section Officer in the Federal Secretariat, Islamabad. The
undersigned has served as Section Officer in Establishment Division and Cabinet Division.
Presently, as per Establishment Division’s Notification dated 17-04-2018, the undersigned
is serving in Pakistan Tourism Development Corporation (PTDC) under Cabinet Division.

2. That the undersigned time and again requested my parent department

i.e. SBK-Women University, Quetta to allow me serving in the Federal Government
under policy ibid but the University vide letter dated 12-07-2019 (received on 22-07-
2019) instructed the undersigned to join back the University immediately. However,
without waiting for my response as per law, University vide letter dated 26-7-2019
issued final notice to the undersigned to resume back duties or avoid termination of
services.

3. That the aforesaid directions of the University are not only against the policy in
vogue but also in violation of Hon’ ble Supreme Court of Pakistan judgment passed in Crl. R.
P No. 93 of 2013 etc. (Judgment passed in review of Crl. 89/2011), which not only legitimize
the wedlock policy but also directed the Sindh Government to immediately withdraw the
petitioner’s repatriation notification and restore her posting to her original position as if she
was never repatriated. Moreover, in case of Mrs. Farah Naz Memon, an employee of Liaqat
University of Medical and Health Sciences, Hon’ ble Supreme Court of Pakistan took Suo
Motu Notice and ordered that a report be called from Vice Chancellor of the University
regarding violation of Wedlock Policy. Furthermore, attention is invited to Article 35 of the
Constitution of Pakistan, which as a principle of policy provides that State shall protect the
marriage, the family, the mother and the child. The Wedlock policy explicated or itinerant
around this principle of policy which is intended to ensure the benefit of family and it also
advances social good. Government of Balochistan vide letter dated 02nd December, 1998 and
12th August, 2006 has endorsed the Wedlock Policy dated 13th May, 1998 issued by the
Federal Government.

4. That it is the settled principal of law that wherever fundamental rights of any citizen of
the country are infringed, extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of High Court under Article
199 of the Constitution comes to play. Hence, the aforesaid directions of the University are
not only against the spirit of wedlock policy but also in violation of judgment passed by Hon’
le Supreme Court of Pakistan as stated above. Hon’ ble Sindh High Court in a judgment
passed in C.P.No. 877 of 2014 set aside the impugned transfer order of a lady being against
the wedlock policy and observed that the petitioner is not claiming any vested right against
any particular post but she only wants the implementation of wedlock policy which was
introduced keeping in view the socio economic problems and hardship faced by husbands
and wives in Government Service due to posting at different station. Establishment Division
time and again clarified that deputation under Wedlock Policy are exempted from the
Maximum period of deputation i.e. five years under rule 20-A of the Civil Servant (APT) Rules,
1973.

In view of the submissions made hereinabove, it is humbly requested that:-

i. The undersigned may be relieved from the Federal Government so that I may
join University as per their instructions. Or

ii. The undersigned case may be taken up with the University in view the
Judgments passed by of Hon’ ble Court and policy in vogue so that the family
may be intact and may not face any hardship please.
Yours truly,

(Bilqees Fatima)
Manager PTDC, Government of
Pakistan, Islamabad,
Copy to:

1. PS to Hon’ble Governor/Chancellor, SBKWU, Quetta, for information and perusal

please.
2. The Vice Chancellor, SBKWU, Quetta for information necessary action please.
3. Section Officer (E-VII), Establishment Division, Islamabad for information please.