SC declares denial of pension to divorced daughters unconstitutional

ISLAMABAD: In a landmark judgement, the Supreme Court gave a detailed written judgement ruling that a divorced daughter is entitled to receive her deceased father’s pension, regardless of her marital status at the time of his death, declaring any discriminatory policies to the contrary unconstitutional.

Authored by Justice Ayesha A. Malik, the 10-page verdict of July 10 asserted that pension is not charity or a privilege but a legal right of a government employee, which, upon their death, passes on to eligible family members. The court emphasized that delaying or denying this right constitutes a legal offence.

The verdict struck down a 2022 circular issued by the Sindh government, which denied pension benefits to daughters who were divorced after their father’s death. Terming the circular “discriminatory, unconstitutional and illegal,” the court maintained that the timing of a daughter’s divorce — whether before or after her father’s passing, is irrelevant to her eligibility.

Love marriage: Pregnant woman, husband killed in Balochistan

“The entitlement to pension must be based on right, not marital status,” the Supreme Court ruled, adding that “conditioning a woman’s pension rights on her marital status violates Articles 9, 14, 25 and 27 of the Constitution.”

The judgement came in response to an appeal filed by the Sindh government against a Sindh High Court (Larkana bench) decision in favour of the petitioner, Surrah Fatima, a divorced daughter of a deceased government servant. who had sought reinstatement of her late father’s pension.

Rejecting the Sindh government’s stance that only daughters divorced before their father’s death are eligible for pension, the apex court upheld the high court’s decision, stressing that financial need, not marital status, should determine entitlement.

President Zardari signs law banning child marriages

The court further observed with regret that Pakistan continues to rank the lowest, 148 out of 148 countries, on the global gender equality index, despite being a signatory to numerous international conventions on gender equity.

“The refusal to view women as financially autonomous individuals is a violation of constitutional principles,” the judgement noted. “A circular cannot override the law by inserting illegal conditions.”

The court reaffirmed that pensions are a protected constitutional right and delays in their provision are tantamount to a criminal offence.