July 29, 2025
By Rehan Piracha
LAHORE
The Supreme Court has struck down a restrictive provincial government circular that denied family pension to daughters of deceased government servants, if their divorce occurred after the parent’s death.
The judgment, authored by Justice Ayesha A. Malik, affirmed that a divorced daughter is entitled to her deceased father’s pension regardless of when her marital status changed, calling into question the patriarchal assumptions embedded in pension laws.
The two-member bench, comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Ayesha A. Malik, dismissed a civil petition filed by the Government of Sindh challenging a High Court decision that granted pension to Sorath Fatima, a woman who had resumed her claim to family pension after being divorced in 2022. Her father, a former employee of the Sindh Road and Transport Department, died in 2002.
Case background
Fatima initially received family pension as an unmarried daughter following her father’s death. However, payments ceased upon her marriage. In 2022, following the dissolution of her marriage through khula, she reapplied for the pension, citing her changed marital status as a divorced daughter.
The Sindh Finance Department denied her request based on a December 2022 circular that narrowly interpreted eligibility, stating that only daughters who were already divorced or widowed at the time of the pensioner’s death could qualify. Fatima challenged this rejection in the Sindh High Court, which ruled in her favor. The provincial government appealed to the Supreme Court.
Sindh govt circular imposes arbitrary condition in pension rules
The Supreme Court examined whether the marital status of a daughter at the time of her parent’s death can be used as a basis to deny pension eligibility. The Court found that the circular imposed unlawful and arbitrary conditions not envisioned in the governing West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963.
Justice Malik noted that Rule 4.10 of the Pension Rules provides family pension to divorced daughters without restricting the timing of the divorce. “The Circular adopts an overly rigid approach making a woman’s entitlement to family pension strictly contingent on whether her status as a widow or divorcee was established prior to or at the exact time of the pensioner’s death,” she wrote, deeming the circular void ab initio and “of no legal effect.”
The Court emphasized that pensions are a statutory and constitutional right, not charity. “Timely payment of pension is not simply an administrative measure but a constitutional obligation,” the judgment stated, linking pension rights to Article 9 of the Constitution—the right to life with dignity.
Systematic bias that treats a daughter as a dependent
In one of its most groundbreaking observations, the bench criticized the gendered framework of pension laws that treat daughters as dependents whose financial status is defined by their relationship to men.
“There is a systematic bias that treats a daughter as a dependent, with her financial dependency shifting from parent to spouse,” Justice Malik observed. She added that such assumptions “fail to recognize women as autonomous right-holders and do not account for the lived realities of women.”
The Court held that eligibility for pension must be assessed on the basis of individual need, not outdated stereotypes. “Dependency is not a metric for financial stability but rather an assumption that disregards actual economic need,” the ruling said, calling marital status-based exclusion “unconstitutional, discriminatory and a violation of Articles 14, 25, and 27 of the Constitution.”
‘India, Bangladesh have shifted to need-based pension framework’
Justice Malik’s opinion placed Pakistan’s pension policies in a global context. Citing developments in India, Bangladesh, the United States, and the European Union, the Court emphasized a shift towards need-based, inclusive frameworks.
“In India, daughters are granted pension based on need and not marital status,” the judgment noted. “Children with disabilities are also eligible for life-long pension if financially dependent.”
Bangladesh’s pension system has undergone similar reforms. “It now allows pensions for widowed or divorced daughters, and sometimes even for grandchildren who depend on the pensioner,” the Court observed, citing Bangladesh’s Universal Pension Scheme and National Social Security Strategy.
From the West, the judgment referred to Carson v. United Kingdom, where the European Court of Human Rights emphasized non-discriminatory distribution of social security benefits. In India, courts have repeatedly affirmed that “pension is not solely a statutory right but the fulfilment of a constitutional promise.”
Call for reforming Pakistan’s pension framework
The judgment closed with a powerful call to reform Pakistan’s pension law framework, urging lawmakers to eliminate marital status as a precondition for eligibility.
“It is important to revisit the law surrounding pension. The Rules should be reconsidered to remove marital status as a condition for entitlement. What we require is a need-based and dignity-affirming framework,” Justice Malik wrote.
She underscored that Pakistan’s international obligations, including under CEDAW, ICCPR, and ILO conventions, mandate the removal of discriminatory barriers. The Court noted Pakistan’s bottom rank—148th—in the Global Gender Gap Index 2025, stressing that cosmetic changes will not suffice.
“The need is not for cosmetic adjustments but for a fundamental change in mindset that affirms dignity and corrects systemic bias,” the judgment concluded.
This ruling is expected to set a precedent for broader pension reform and judicial scrutiny of gender-based exclusions in welfare entitlements. The decision affirms that women must be recognized not as dependents, but as individuals entitled to equal economic rights and protections under the law — regardless of their marital status.