Pakistan: No jobs for families of deceased civil servants under new govt rule
Islamabad: Pakistan's government has abolished the policy that allowed family members of deceased civil servants to automatically receive government employment, the Express Tribune reported.
This decision aligns with a Supreme Court ruling from October 18, 2024, which deemed the practice unconstitutional and discriminatory. The move comes as the government instructs all ministries and divisions to strictly adhere to the new guidelines, the report added.
In the notification issued by the Establishment Division, it was made clear that the policy of offering government jobs to the families of deceased civil servants has been withdrawn, following the Supreme Court's ruling.
According to the Express Tribune report , the new policy will take effect immediately from the date of the ruling. However, the family members of deceased employees will still be eligible for other benefits under the Prime Minister's Assistance Package. The ruling does not apply to the families of law enforcement personnel who lose their lives in terrorist attacks. Appointments made before the Supreme Court's decision will remain unaffected by the ruling.
The Supreme Court's ruling dismantled the government's job quota scheme for the family members of civil servants, declaring it discriminatory and unconstitutional. Under the scheme, a widow, widower, spouse, or child of a deceased or medically retired employee was appointed to a government position without the need for open competition or merit-based selection, reported the Express Tribune.
In its ruling, the Court noted that the scheme was specifically discriminatory against low-grade employees and their families. "These jobs neither are nor can be made hereditary," the order stated.
The 11-page judgment, authored by Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, emphasised that public sector employment could not be "parcelled out to the functionaries of the state," as it would undermine the principles of fairness and equality. The Constitution mandated that equal employment and economic opportunities must be provided to all citizens.
The Court also explained that any policy or law that contradicted constitutional principles was subject to judicial review. "Any law, policy or rule was subject to judicial review if it was manifestly inconsistent with the constitutional commands, retrogressive in nature, and discriminatory inter se the citizens," the order read.
The ruling struck down previous orders, declaring that appointing a widow, widower, spouse, or child of a civil servant--who had passed away during service or become permanently disabled--under this quota scheme was "discriminatory and ultra vires to Articles 3, 4, 5(2), 18, 25(1), and 27 of the Constitution," the Express Tribune added in its report.
However, the Court clarified that the decision did not affect appointments already made under the hereditary quota for current employees. Federal and provincial authorities were instructed to withdraw these laws, aligning them with the constitutional framework. (ANI)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Observer
13 hours ago
- Observer
Obfuscating on obliterating
Donald Trump has finally met his match. The Iranian Supreme Leader lies just as boldly, with just as much bombast, as the American Supreme Leader. On Thursday, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei put out a video hailing Iran's victory over Israel and the United States. Trump was shocked, shocked at this blatant lie. 'As a man of great faith, he is not supposed to lie,' the president marvelled on Truth Social. Then Trump went on to his usual authoritarian etiquette lesson, complaining that the proper response by Khamenei to getting hit with 14 30,000-pound bombs should have been: 'THANK YOU, PRESIDENT TRUMP!' Trump said that he deserved gratitude because he knew where Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was hiding and stopped Israeli and US forces from killing him. He said that he made Israel recall a group of planes headed for Tehran that were, perhaps, looking for 'the final knockout!' 'I wish the leadership of Iran would realize,' he tut-tutted, 'that you often get more with HONEY than you do with VINEGAR. PEACE!!!' Half an hour later, Mr Honey put out a typically vinegary post abruptly cutting off 'ALL' trade talks with Canada. Before Trump did it, with an assist from the Supreme Court on Friday, it was Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld who worked to erode checks and balances and hoover all the power into the executive branch. With the malleable George W Bush in the Oval, Cheney and Rumsfeld were able to create an alternate universe where they were never wrong — because they conjured up information to prove they were right. The two malevolent regents had a fever about getting rid of Saddam, so they hyped up intelligence, redirecting Americans' vengeful emotions about Osama bin Laden and 9/11 into that pet project. Tony Blair scaremongered that it would take only 45 minutes for Saddam to send his WMDs westward. But there were no WMDs. When it comes to the Middle East, presidents can't resist indulging in a gasconade. Unlike Iraq, Iran was actually making progress on its nuclear programme. Trump did not need to warp intelligence to justify his decision. But he did anyway, to satisfy his unquenchable ego. He bragged that the strikes had 'OBLITERATED' Iran's nuclear capabilities. 'I just don't think the president was telling the truth,' Sen Chris Murphy, D-Conn, told reporters. He believes Iran still has 'significant remaining capability.' When CNN's Natasha Bertrand and her colleagues broke the story that a preliminary classified US report suggested that the strikes had set back Iran by only a few months, Trump, Pete Hegseth and Karoline Leavitt smeared her and The New York Times, which confirmed her scoop, as inaccurate, unpatriotic and disrespectful to our military. On Friday afternoon, CNN revealed that the military did not even use bunker-buster bombs on one of Iran's largest nuclear targets because it was too deep. Though Trump likes to hug the flag — and just raised two huge ones on the White House North and South Lawns — he ignores a basic tenet of patriotism: It is patriotic to tell the public the truth on life-or-death matters, and for the press to challenge power. It is unpatriotic to mislead the public in order to control it and suppress dissent, or as a way of puffing up your own ego. Although he was dubbed the 'Daddy' of NATO in The Hague on Wednesday, Trump clearly has daddy issues. (Pass the tissues!) He did not get the affirmation from his father that could have prevented this vainglorious vamping. For Trump, it was not enough for the strikes to damage Iran's nuclear capabilities; they had to 'obliterate' them. It could not simply be an impressive mission; it had to be, as Hegseth said, 'the most complex and secretive military operation in history.' (Move over, D-Day and crossing the Delaware.) The president was so eager to magnify the mission that he eerily compared it to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Trump has always believed in 'truthful hyperbole", as he called it in 'The Art of the Deal". But now it's untruthful hyperbole. He has falsely claimed that an election was stolen and falsely claimed that $1.7 trillion in cuts to the social safety net in his Big, Unpopular Bill 'won't affect anybody; it is just fraud, waste and abuse.' 'So many Americans still have questions about the 2020 election,' a reporter told Trump at the news conference on Friday, wondering if he would appoint someone at the Justice Department to investigate judges 'for the political persecution of you, your family and your supporters during the Biden administration?' Trump beamed.
Observer
a day ago
- Observer
Another check on Trump's power fades
The Supreme Court ruling barring judges from swiftly blocking government actions, even when they may be illegal, is yet another way that checks on executive authority have eroded as President Trump pushes to amass more power. The decision will allow Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship to take effect in some parts of the country — even though every court that has looked at the directive has ruled it unconstitutional. That means some infants born to undocumented immigrants or foreign visitors without green cards can be denied citizenship-affirming documentation like Social Security numbers. But the diminishing of judicial authority as a potential counterweight to exercises of presidential power carries implications far beyond the issue of citizenship. The Supreme Court is effectively tying the hands of lower-court judges at a time when they are trying to respond to a steady geyser of aggressive executive branch orders and policies. Presidential power historically goes through ebbs and flows, with fundamental implications for the functioning of the system of checks and balances that defines American-style democracy. But it has generally been on an upward path since the middle of the 20th century. The growth of the administrative state inside the executive branch and the large standing armies left in place as World War II segued into the Cold War, inaugurated what the historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr coined the 'imperial presidency'. Presidential power waned in the 1970s, in the period encompassing the Watergate scandal and the end of the Vietnam War. Courts proved willing to rule against the presidency, as when the Supreme Court forced President Richard M Nixon to turn over his Oval Office tapes. Members of both parties worked together to enact laws imposing new or restored limits on the exercise of executive power. But the present era is very different. Presidential power began to grow again in the Reagan era and after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. And now Trump, rejecting norms of self-restraint, has pushed to eliminate checks on his authority and stamp out pockets of independence within the government while only rarely encountering resistance from a Supreme Court he reshaped and a Congress controlled by a party in his thrall. The decision by the Supreme Court's conservative majority comes as other constraints on Trump's power have also eroded. The administration has steamrolled internal executive branch checks, including firing inspectors-general and sidelining the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which traditionally set guardrails for proposed policies and executive orders. And Congress, under the control of Trump's fellow Republicans, has done little to defend its constitutional role against his encroachments. This includes unilaterally dismantling agencies Congress had said shall exist as a matter of law, firing civil servants in defiance of statutory limits and refusing to spend funds that lawmakers had authorised and appropriated. Last week, when Trump unilaterally bombed Iranian nuclear sites without getting prior authorisation from Congress or making any claim of an imminent threat, one Republican, Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, stepped forward to call the move unconstitutional since Congress has the power to declare war. Trump reacted ferociously, declaring that he would back a primary challenger to end Massie's political career, a clear warning shot to any other Republican considering objecting to his actions. Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, recently told her constituents that 'we are all afraid' of Trump. But while the immediate beneficiary of the Supreme Court's ruling is Trump, the decision also promises to free his successors from what has been a growing trend of district court intervention into presidential policymaking. In the citizenship case, the justices stripped district court judges of the authority to issue so-called universal injunctions, a tool that lower courts have used to block government actions they deem most likely illegal from taking effect nationwide as legal challenges to them play out. The frequency of such orders has sharply increased in recent years, bedeviling presidents of both parties. Going forward, the justices said, lower courts may only grant injunctive relief to the specific plaintiffs who have filed lawsuits. That means the Trump administration may start enforcing Trump's birthright citizenship order in the 28 states that have not challenged it, unless individual parents have the wherewithal and gumption to bring their own lawsuits. The full scope of the ruling remains to be seen given that it will not take effect for 30 days. It is possible that plaintiffs and lower-court judges will expand the use of class-action lawsuits as a different path to orders with a nationwide effect. Such an option, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion, would be proper so long as they obey procedural limits for class-action cases. In a rare move that signalled unusually intense opposition, Justice Sonia Sotomayor read aloud a summary of her dissenting opinion from the bench on Friday. Calling the ruling a grave attack on the American system of law, she said it endangered constitutional rights for everyone who is not a party to lawsuits defending them. 'Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship,' she wrote. 'Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship. The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief.' She, like the other two justices who joined her dissent, is a Democratic appointee. — The New York Times Charlie Savage The writer has been writing about presidential power and legal policy for more than two decades
Times of Oman
2 days ago
- Times of Oman
Trump hails Supreme Court's "monumental" order on birthright citizenship limiting nationwide injunctions
Washington: US President Donald Trump hailed Supreme Court's ruling to limit the ability of lower courts to issue nationwide orders that temporarily stop the government from enforcing a policy, allowing his executive order restricting birthright citizenship to go into effect in some areas of the country, for now, by curtailing judges' ability to block the president's policies nationwide, reported New York Times. The Supreme Court on Friday limited the ability of lower-court judges to block executive branch policies nationwide, opening the door for a majority of states to at least temporarily enforce President Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship. President Donald Trump called the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. CASA "monumental" and thanked the court for curbing injunctions from the briefing room podium, flanked by Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. "This morning, the Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law in striking down the excessive use of nationwide injunctions to interfere with the normal functioning of the executive branch," said Trump. Nationwide injunctions have frequently been used by lower courts to stop executive actions from applying across the board rather than just granting relief to plaintiffs who sued. Trump's actions had been the subject of 25 injunctions between the start of his term in January and the end of April, more than any other president over the same time period, according to data from the Congressional Research Service and a Harvard Law Review tally, reported New York Post. Trump went on to thank the conservative justices on the court -- including Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who authored the majority opinion -- and said this allows his administration to move ahead with "numerous polices" now that lower court judges have been limited in their ability to issue nationwide injunctions. "Radical-left judges effectively tried to overrule the rightful powers of the president, to stop the Americans people from getting the policies that they voted for in record numbers. So, thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with these numerous policies and those that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis, including birthright citizenship; ending sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding, stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries and numerous other priorities of the American people. Our country should be very of the Supreme Court today," added Trump. Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the Constitution's 14th Amendment. For now, the justices narrowed the lower court rulings to only block Trump's order as applied to the 22 Democratic-led states, expectant mothers and immigration organizations that are suing, "but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue." The justices ordered the lower courts to move "expeditiously" to refashion their injunctions to comply with the new ruling, reported The Hill. Though the court curtailed nationwide injunctions, the decision leaves the door open for plaintiffs to try to seek broad relief by pursuing class action lawsuits. Within hours, one group of plaintiffs quickly took the hint. Three federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state imposed sweeping injunctions halting the order from taking effect in response to lawsuits from plaintiffs including immigration groups and nearly two dozen states. A coalition of expectant mothers and immigration organizations suing asked a district judge in Maryland to issue a new ruling that applies to anyone designated as ineligible for birthright citizenship under Trump's order -- the same practical effect as a nationwide injunction, reported The Hill. The American Civil Liberties Union brought an entirely new lawsuit Friday seeking to do the same. The efforts could quickly bring the birthright citizenship battle back to the Supreme Court. The states have vowed to press ahead, believing that nationwide relief is still necessary. The majority also left the door open for plaintiffs to still try to seek broad relief by filing class action lawsuits, which quickly commenced in two separate cases. The Trump administration can now resume developing guidance to implement the order, though it must wait 30 days before attempting to deny citizenship to anyone, reported The Hill. Trump v CASA was the most high-profile proceeding before the Supreme Court this term, which has now wrapped up. The Supreme Court will convene for its next term on October 6.
