If son can be father’s successor after marriage, why not daughter: SC

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) Monday ruled that the daughter of a deceased government employee is eligible for a job in her father’s place. A two-member SC bench comprising Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Athar Minallah heard the case regarding the job rights of petitioner Zahida Parveen, who was dismissed from her job after her father’s death.

During the course of hearing Justice Mansoor observed that a woman’s marriage had no connection with her financial independence. “If a son can be his father’s successor after marriage, why not a daughter,” he remarked.

Advocate General Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) informed the court that according to a ruling by former chief justice Qazi Faez Isa, government employees’ children could not be given jobs on a preferential basis.

Justice Mansoor, however, responded that the Supreme Court decision was issued in 2024, whereas the case existed before it. “That ruling does not apply retroactively,” the judge remarked.

Justice Mansoor asked the KP law officer as to how did he terminate the woman after initially giving her the job. The KP advocate general replied that she got married and therefore was no more eligible for the job in place of her father.

Justice Mansoor asked the provincial law officer as to where was it written in the law that a daughter becomes ineligible for employment after marriage.

The KP advocate general replied that she was removed through a notification under the KP Civil Service Act. Justice Mansoor observed that marriage had no connection with a woman’s economic independence. He remarked that if a son could become a successor of his father in a government job after marriage, why not the daughter as well.

Meanwhile, the court, after accepting the petition of Zahida Parveen, declared her eligible for the job in her father’s place and disposed of the matter. Justice Mansoor announced that the court would issue a detailed ruling on women’s financial independence and the Supreme Court’s stance on the matter.