A recent ruling by the Federal Ombudsperson for Protection Against Harassment has made one thing unmistakably clear: paternity leave is not a favour granted by employers, but a right protected by law. The decision, delivered by Fauzia Waqar, followed a complaint that exposed how easily statutory protections can be ignored when institutional policy lags behind social reality.
What prompted the ruling
The case began when Syed Basit Ali, an officer at the Banking Services Corporation of the State Bank of Pakistan, applied for 30 days of paternity leave after the birth of his son. His request was turned down on the grounds that the bank’s internal rules did not recognise such leave.
What followed was not simply an administrative dispute but a legal question about equality, parental responsibility, and whether institutions can selectively apply welfare laws. The complaint argued that maternity leave was already being granted under federal legislation, and denying the corresponding right to fathers created clear gender imbalance. The ombudsperson agreed, concluding that refusal of paternity leave amounts to discrimination and, more significantly, workplace harassment based on gender.
The decision and its consequences
The ruling ordered the bank to grant full paid leave to the complainant and imposed a financial penalty, with compensation directed partly to the affected employee and partly to the national treasury. Beyond the fine, however, the more meaningful directive was structural: the institution must amend its leave policy to fully comply with federal law.
This transforms the case from an individual grievance into a precedent. By declaring childcare a shared parental duty rather than a woman’s sole responsibility, the judgment reframes workplace leave as a matter of family wellbeing and child welfare, not merely employee convenience.
Understanding the law behind it
At the centre of the dispute is the Maternity and Paternity Leave Act, 2023, a federal statute that guarantees paid leave for both mothers and fathers working in public-sector bodies and federally administered organisations. The law provides substantial maternity leave across the first three births and a fixed period of paid paternity leave for fathers, granted outside regular leave balances so that caregiving does not come at the cost of annual or medical leave.
Crucially, the legislation overrides conflicting internal policies and allows penalties for non-compliance, signalling Parliament’s intent to treat parental leave as a welfare right rather than an optional benefit. Recent enforcement, including the State Bank case, suggests the law is moving from paper promise to practical reality.
A broader shift in workplace thinking
What makes this ruling notable is not only the fine or the policy correction, but the language surrounding it. By linking denial of paternity leave to equality, dignity, and the best interests of the child, the decision nudges workplace culture toward a more balanced understanding of parenthood.
In a landscape where maternity protections exist (to an extent), paternal involvement remained structurally invisible, this moment feels less like a legal technicality and more like a social correction. And if enforced consistently, it may mark the beginning of workplaces recognising what families have always known: raising a child was never meant to be a one-person job.
Sources: Geo News, Express Tribune, Business Recorder, Startup Pakistan
Comments 1