Islamabad: The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) has challenged the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal (FST) dated April 30, 2025 before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, raising an important legal question regarding the scope of the government's wedlock policy and whether it can create an absolute right for a civil servant to remain posted at a particular station for an indefinite period.
The petition has been filed through Hafiz Ehsaan Ahmad Khokhar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, who argued that the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is contrary to the statutory framework governing civil servants and undermines the lawful administrative authority of the government in matters relating to postings and transfers.
The case was earlier heard by a two-member bench headed by the Chief Justice. However, considering the importance of the legal issues involved and their potential impact on the civil service structure across Pakistan, the matter has now been fixed before a three-member bench headed by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail.
During the hearing, senior counsel Hafiz Ehsaan Ahmad Khokhar submitted that the decision of the Tribunal overlooks the clear statutory scheme governing civil servants under the Civil Servants Act, 1973. He argued that Section 10 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 expressly empowers the competent authority to regulate appointments, postings and transfers in accordance with prescribed rules. The statutory scheme clearly recognizes that a civil servant holds a transferable post and serves the State rather than any particular station. Therefore, no civil servant has a vested or permanent right to remain posted at a specific place.
The counsel further pointed out that Section 22 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, which empowers the Federal Government to frame rules regulating the terms and conditions of service of civil servants, has led to the formulation of service rules and administrative frameworks including the Establishment Code (Estacode). These rules expressly provide that officers holding transferable posts may be posted anywhere in Pakistan depending upon administrative requirements and the exigencies of service.
Referring to the Estacode, the counsel argued that the service framework governing federal civil servants incorporates the principle of rotation of postings in order to ensure administrative efficiency, transparency and institutional integrity. Officers are therefore liable to serve wherever the government requires their services, and prolonged postings at the same station are generally discouraged to maintain fairness in the administrative system.
Hafiz Khokhar Khokhar further argued that the Tribunal erred in treating the wedlock policy as a binding legal restriction on the power of transfer. He explained that the policy was issued by the Establishment Division through an Office Memorandum dated May 13, 1998, which merely provides that, as far as possible, efforts may be made to post spouses at the same station. However, the memorandum itself makes the policy subject to the availability of posts and the exigencies of service, thereby clearly indicating that the policy is directory rather than mandatory.
The senior counsel emphasized that executive instructions cannot override statutory provisions. He referred to Articles 90 and 99 of the Constitution of Pakistan, which provide that the executive authority of the Federation is exercised in accordance with the Constitution and the law. Administrative policies issued by ministries or divisions therefore operate within the limits prescribed by statute and cannot curtail powers expressly conferred by law.
According to the counsel, by elevating the wedlock policy to the status of a legally enforceable prohibition on transfers, the Tribunal effectively allowed an administrative guideline to override the statutory authority granted under the Civil Servants Act. Such an interpretation, he argued, is contrary to settled principles of administrative and constitutional law.
In support of his submissions, the counsel relied upon binding precedents of the Supreme Court. He cited the judgment in Federation of Pakistan v. Syed Mehmood Shah (1996 SCMR 1445), in which the Court held that matters relating to transfer and posting fall within the exclusive administrative domain and ordinarily cannot be interfered with by courts unless mala fide or violation of statutory rules is established.
He also referred to Government of Punjab v. Muhammad Azam (PLD 2013 SC 66), where the Supreme Court reiterated that a government servant cannot claim posting at a particular station as a matter of right and that transfer is an incidence of service.
The counsel further submitted that the Tribunal had incorrectly relied on a recent judgment authored by Justice Ayesha A. Malik in CPLA No. 4701 of 2024 (decided on December 4, 2025). According to him, that judgment merely emphasized that genuine hardship and special circumstances should be considered when applying the wedlock policy. It did not hold that the policy creates an absolute legal bar on transfers. The Tribunal, however, misapplied the ratio of the judgment by treating it as a blanket prohibition against transfers.
Addressing the factual background of the case, the counsel pointed out that the respondent officer had remained posted at the same station for more than twelve years. The officer joined service in 2006 in BPS-14, was promoted to BPS-16 in 2008, and subsequently promoted to BPS-17 in 2021, yet continued to remain posted in Peshawar throughout this period.
He argued that such prolonged retention at the same station runs contrary to the principle of rotation recognized under the Estacode and established administrative norms. Furthermore, the respondent had not pleaded or established any medical ground or extraordinary hardship that could justify continued retention at the same station.
According to the FBR, the transfer order was issued purely in the exigencies of service and in accordance with the statutory framework governing civil servants. The Tribunal, however, set aside the transfer order by placing undue reliance on the wedlock policy while ignoring the governing statutory provisions and settled jurisprudence.
After hearing the preliminary arguments, the three-member bench headed by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail issued notices to the respondent and framed an important legal question for determination: whether the wedlock policy can confer an absolute legal right upon a civil servant to remain posted at a particular station, or whether under the Civil Servants Act a government servant remains liable to serve anywhere in Pakistan and an administrative policy cannot override statutory provisions.