Summary: ''Section 3 Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972--- Article 31 & 35 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. A widow who was inducted on contract employment due to death of her husband during service, was terminated from service due to contracting second marriage---- held that marriage or re-marriage is a religious and fundamental right of a woman and any step /action taken in contravention of such right would be illegal, unlawful and ultra vires. A civil servant passed away during his service upon which his widow was appointed as Naib Qasid. But on her re-marriage, her services were terminated under Memorandum dated 15.12.2015 issued by the Establishment Division whereby on remarriage of a widow the contract of employment provided to her would be terminated from the date of her remarriage. The said Memorandum dated 15.12.2015 had already been set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. Thus no immunity/ protection is attached to such illegal order of an authority. Intra Court Appeal allowed.'' ---- Background: The appellant, Zoya Islam, a widow of a Pakistan Mint employee, was appointed as a Naib Qasid (BS-01) on a five-year contract under the "Revision of Assistance Package for Families of Government Employees who Die in Service" dated 04.12.2015. Following her second marriage, her employment was terminated on 30.09.2021, based on a notification issued by the Establishment Division dated 15.12.2015, which disqualified widows who remarry from continuing their employment under the assistance package. Zoya Islam challenged this termination through a writ petition (W.P. No.73497/2022), which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the grounds that contract employees cannot maintain writ petitions. This dismissal led to the present intra-court appeal (ICA). ---- Issues: 1) Whether the appellant’s termination from service due to her remarriage was lawful. ---2) Whether the 15.12.2015 notification that disqualifies widows from employment upon remarriage is constitutional and consistent with Islamic principles and prior court rulings. ---3) Whether the appellant, as a contract employee, has the legal standing to file a writ petition. ---- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that: The termination of Zoya Islam on the grounds of remarriage was unconstitutional and against Islamic principles. Islam encourages widows to remarry, and their rights, including employment, should not be infringed based on such a decision. The notification dated 15.12.2015 issued by the Establishment Division was previously declared unconstitutional by the Islamabad High Court and the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the Mst. Samia Tabassum case. This precedent established that a widow’s employment under the assistance package should not be affected by her remarriage. The termination order violated the principles of Shariah, Articles 31 and 35 of the Constitution, and precedents established by the superior courts, thus rendering it void. The appellant was entitled to reinstatement. The appeal was allowed, and the writ petition was accepted. The termination order dated 30.09.2021 and the decision to decline reinstatement were both set aside. ---- Citations/Precedents: Mst. Samia Tabassum v. Federation of Pakistan, Writ Petition No.389 of 2016 (Islamabad High Court judgment dated 27.05.2016) – Declared the 15.12.2015 memorandum unconstitutional and affirmed the right of widows to continue employment despite remarriage. Mst. Basharat Jehan v. Director General, Federal Government Education, FGEI (C/O) Rawalpindi, 2015 SCMR 1418 – Affirmed that once a legal right is vested through an appointment, it cannot be taken away without legal justification. Muhammad Sharif v. Settlement Commissioner and others, 2007 SCMR 707 – Affirmed the mandatory compliance of superior court judgments under Article 189 of the Constitution. Iffat Jabeen v. District Education Officer (M.E.E.), Lahore and another, 2011 SCMR 437 – Reinforced the principle of adhering to superior court decisions. Dr. Iqrar Ahmad Khan v. Dr. Muhammad Ashraf and others, 2021 SCMR 1509 – Reiterated the binding nature of Supreme Court rulings.