Rule 5(57)
|
"Traveling allowance"-It varies upon the circumstances of each journey
undertaken by an employee.
Government of People's Republic of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary
Ministry of Labour and Manpower, Bangladesh Secretariat Dhaka vs Hasan
Movies Ltd and others 48 DLR (AD) 40.
|
Government of People's Republic of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary Ministry of Labour and Manpower, Bangladesh Secretariat Dhaka vs Hasan Movies Ltd and others |
48 DLR (AD) 40 |
Rule 9
|
Service record counted when the date of birth entered in the service or
SSC–
Rule 9 of Bangladesh Service Rules (Part-I), where it has been stated as
under:
"বিধি-৯। সরকারী চাকরিতে
প্রবেশের সময় বা প্রবেশের
উদ্দেশে একজন আবেদনকারী যে
বয়স ঘোষনা করেন, উহাই তাহার
ক্ষেত্রে আবশিকভাবে
প্রযোজ্য হইবে এবং
পরবরতীকালে কোন উদ্দেশেই
তাহা সংশোধনের অনুমতি দেওয়া
যাইবে না।"
The case of Randir Singh Vs. The Sate of Rajastan and others reported in
1992(2) ESC 435 (Raj) where it has been observed that the respondents were
duty bound to scrutinize the documents right at the time of admission
rather than punishing at a belated stage.
(1995) 4 SCC 172 the Indian Supreme Court held that when the date of birth
entered in the service and leave record on the basis of voluntary
declaration made by the employee at the time of appointment authenticated
by him and never objected to up to the fag end of service such action of
any party will act as acquiescence and when a party expresses acquiescence
and thereby waived a right to dispute he will be estopped from making any
such dispute at the end of the service.
Reported in 15 MLR (AD) 65, this Division held that when by an act, conduct
or consent, express or implied a person allows another person to proceed in
doing some act or transaction with bona fide belief, such conduct or
consent of the person so allowing constitutes waiver and acquiescence and
the said person is stopped from claiming any right subsequent thereto
against the person acting under such assurance.
We are of the view that since the order impugned before the High Court
Division had been issued after retirement of the writ-petitioner-respondent
he cannot be treated in the service of the Republic. Thus issuance of the
order impugned before the High Court Division upon the
writ-petitioner-respondent, when he was not actually in the service can be
challenged under Article 102 of the Constitution. We do not find any
substance in this appeal. Accordingly, this civil appeal is dismissed
without any order as to costs. …Ministry of Social Welfare, Bangladesh
=VS= Akterun Nabi(Md.), (Civil), 2019 (2) [7 LM (AD) 63]
....View Full Judgment
|
Ministry of Social Welfare, Bangladesh =VS= Akterun Nabi(Md.) |
7 LM (AD) 63 |
Rule 9
|
Under rule 9 of the BSR Part I date of birth declared and recorded at the
time of entry into service cannot be changed subsequently.
Bangladesh Agricultural Development Corporation Vs. Abdul Barek Dewan
being dead his heirs Bali Begum and others 4, MLR (1999) (AD) 167.
|
Bangladesh Agricultural Development Corporation Vs. Abdul Barek Dewan being dead his heirs Bali Begum and others |
4 MLR (AD) 167 |
Rule 24(1)
|
lf Class III and Class IV employees have been exempted from operation of
rule 24(1) then it is an improvement in their general condition of service.
If any authority violates this improved condition of service then it is a
clear violation of the general conditions of service of that employee.
Government of Bangladesh and Ors vs Mohammad Faruque 51 DLR (AD) 112.
|
Government of Bangladesh and Ors vs Mohammad Faruque |
51 DLR (AD) 112 |
Rule 24(1)
|
Under Rule 24(1) of Bangladesh Service Rules Government Servant may be
transferred from one post to another. This is a term and conditions of
service of a Government servant If Class III and Class IV employees have
been exempted from operation of Rule 24(1) then it is an improvement in
their general condition of service. If any authority violates the said
improved condition of service and transfers a Class III or Class IV
employee from one station to another then it is a clean violation of the
general conditions of service of that employee.
Government of Bangladesh and ors., Vs Mohammad Faruque, 18 BLD (AD) 277.
|
Government of Bangladesh and ors., Vs Mohammad Faruque |
18 BLD (AD) 277 |
Rule 34
|
The plea of waiver or acquiescence is not available in respect of violation
of any law. If it is violated, the Court is bound to say so, no matter when
it is raised– The Administrative Appellate Tribunal miserably failed to
notice that in the instant case there found no application of the said
“special circumstances of the case” by the Government. Rather the then
Director General applied the said “special circumstances of the case’
concerning the unauthorized leave of absence of the respondent for 07 years
and 07 months and 24 days from his work. As the Director General was not
empowered to act under rule 34, his alleged application of the said
“special circumstances of the case’ was not only without lawful
authority but also void ab intio. What is void ab initio, that cannot be
validated later in any way. Appellate Division opines that the
Administrative Appellate Tribunal erred in law in interfering with the
judgment and order of the Administrative Tribunal. The Government is at
liberty in taking initiative for refunding the amount paid to the
respondent-petitioner as pay and allowances. .....Ministry of Planning,
Bangladesh =VS= Sayed Mahabubul Karim, (Civil), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 157]
....View Full Judgment
|
Ministry of Planning, Bangladesh =VS= Sayed Mahabubul Karim |
13 LM (AD) 157 |
Rule 34
|
Bangladesh Service Rules(1st Part)
Rule 34
It is unambiguous from the phraseology of the rule 34 of the BSR that when
continuous absence from work exceeds five years, be the absence with or
without leave; the service of a Government servant will come to an end.
Yet, the Government and only the Government may make a diverse conclusion
upon taking into consideration any special state of affairs. Consequently,
this mechanical ceasing of the service is subject to the ability of the
Government to take a different decision in the light of out of the ordinary
situation. …Bangladesh and another Vs. Sayed Mahabubul Karim, (Civil), 16
SCOB [2022] AD 46
....View Full Judgment
|
Bangladesh and another Vs. Sayed Mahabubul Karim |
16 SCOB [2022] AD 46 |
Rule 34
|
A Government servant ceases to be in service in consequence of his
continuous absence from duties for more than five years without leave—
In the instant case the respondent filed the application u/s 4(1) before
taking any decision by the departmental higher authority and as such the
application is held not maintainable. Moreover the respondent tendered his
resignation and remained absent from duty for more than 25 years without
leave and in consequence whereof he ceased to be in the government
employment as provided under rule 34 of the BSR Part-I. The apex court held
the impugned judgment of the Administrative Tribunal and Administrative
Appellate Tribunal illegal and set-aside the same. Government of
Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Food and others Vs.
A.B.M Siddique Mia 15 MLR (2010) (AD) 460.
|
Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Food and others Vs. A.B.M Siddique Mia |
15 MLR (AD) 460 |
Rule 34
|
Writ-petitioner allowed to join her post–
We are of the opinion that the decision of the concerned authority to treat
the service of the writ-petitioner as ceased, without considering any
special circumstances put forward by her, is in violation of rule 34 of the
BSR. Hence, the writ-petitioner-respondent No.1 must be allowed to join her
post. The writ-respondents are directed to accept the joining letter of the
writ-petitioner. However, in view of her absence from service, we are of
the opinion that the writ-petitioner will not be entitled to receive any
arrear salary. ...Government of Bangladesh =VS= Dr. Monija Begum, (Civil),
2019 (1) [6 LM (AD) 35]
....View Full Judgment
|
Government of Bangladesh =VS= Dr. Monija Begum |
6 LM (AD) 35 |
Rule 42
|
Bangladesh Service Rules, Part-1
Rule 42
Bengal Statue 1781, Bengal Regulation No.1793, Act of 1964, Act of 1865,
Act of 1871, Act of 1877 and Act 16 of 1908, Act of 1964
Service (Reorganization and Condition) Act, 1975
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 102, 105
Supreme Court of Bangladesh (Appellate Division) Rules, 1988
Order XXVI
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Order XLVII, rule 1
Extra Mohorars— Writ-petitioners are entitled to united grades and pay of
scale, equal pay and other benefits of service— The
respondents-writ-petitioners invoked writ jurisdiction under Article 102 of
the Constitution to protect their rights as Government employees and
against hostile and discriminatory action of the appellant-writ respondents
as such writ petition is very much maintainable. .....Ministry of Law,
Bangladesh =VS= Abdur Rahman Bhuiyan, (Civil), 2024(1) [16 LM (AD) 35]
....View Full Judgment
|
Ministry of Law, Bangladesh =VS= Abdur Rahman Bhuiyan |
16 LM (AD) 35 |
Rule 45
|
Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985
Rule 4(b), 4(2)(b)
The Bangladesh Service Rules (Part-II)
Rule 45
The Jail Code
Rule 194
Increments can be withheld for a specified period– In ordering the
withholding of an increment the withholding authority shall state the
period for which it is withheld, and whether the postponement shall have
the effect of postponing future increments. The same principle has been
followed in Rule 4(b) of the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, 1985. It is quite evident from the Fundamental Rule 24 that
increments can be withheld for a specified period and it is to be stated
whether the postponement shall have the effect of postponing future
increments. But in the instant case the two annual increments of the
petitioner had been stopped permanently and it was not stated whether the
said postponement of the annual increment shall affect the future
increments, which is derogatory to the Fundamental Rule 24. It is,
therefore, clear that the appellants passed the impugned orders by
violating the Rule 24 of the Fundamental Rules; the Rule 45 of the B.S.R.
(Part-II); the Rule 4(2)(b) of the Government servants (Discipline &
Appeal) Rules, 1985 and the Rule 194 of the Jail Code. .....Government of
Bangladesh =VS= Mohd. Bazlur Rashid Akand, (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 19]
....View Full Judgment
|
Government of Bangladesh =VS= Mohd. Bazlur Rashid Akand |
12 LM (AD) 19 |
Rule 52
|
Rule-52 read with Fundamental Rule-29
The punishment inflicted upon the appellant by the domestic tribunal is
defective for not fixing any time limit for the reduction in rank. For this
defect the penalty itself cannot be set aside, but only modified. This will
not only be in conformity with Rule 52 of the Bangladesh Service Rules hut
also with Fundamental Rule 29, although Fundamental Rule 29 has been framed
in a different context. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case we think that the ends of justice will be met if we only state the
period of reduction in rank of the appellant.
S. N. Chowdhury Vs. Govt. of Bangladesh & Ors. 9BLT (AD)-145.
|
S. N. Chowdhury Vs. Govt. of Bangladesh & Ors. |
9 BLT (AD) 145 |
Rule 52
|
Also provides for the penalty of reduction to be for specified period—
As provided under rule 52 of the Bangladesh Service Rules Part I read with
rule 4 (3)(a) of the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1985
the authority while imposing the penalty of reduction in rank must specify
the period during which such penalty shall exist. When the period is not
specified in the order the penalty itself where the charges are
established, can not be set aside but be modified. Anwar Hossain (Md.) Vs.
Government of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance
and others 12 MLR (2007) (AD) 12.
|
Anwar Hossain (Md.) Vs. Government of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance and others |
12 MLR (AD) 12 |
Rule 72, Note 4
|
The period of absence of Government servant on reinstatement in service
after wrongful retirement shall be treated as a period spent on duty and he
will be entitled to pay allowances and as admissible under clause (a) of
the Rule. Clause (a) of Rule 72 speaks that in case of honourable acquittal
the incumbent is entitled to full pay to which he would have been entitled
if he had not been dismissed or removed or suspended. The Administrate
Appellate Tribunal rightly held that the respondent is entitled to the
arrear pay and allowances.
Secretary, Ministry of Establishment Vs A .M Nurunnabi 21 BLD (AD) 41.
|
Secretary, Ministry of Establishment Vs A .M Nurunnabi |
21 BLD (AD) 41 |
Rule 246, 147 and 249
|
Bangladesh Service Rules, Part-1
Rule 246, 147 and 249 r/w
The Public Servants (Retirement) Act, 1974
Section 10
The authority stopping the pay of the pension to the petitioner has no
legal basis– In the instant case the petitioner neither convicted nor
found guilty of grave misconduct by any competent authority during his
entire 31 years service period. In the instant case there was no judicial
or departmental proceedings pending against the petitioner at the time of
his retirement; even no proceedings either judicial or department had been
initiated against him within a year of his retirement. Thus, the action
taken by the authority stopping the pay of the pension to the petitioner
has no legal basis. The respondents have failed to show us that the
impugned action has been taken within the ambit of the above provisions of
law or any other relevant law. .....Sanaullah(Md.) =VS= Government of
Bangladesh, (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 319]
....View Full Judgment
|
Sanaullah(Md.) =VS= Government of Bangladesh |
12 LM (AD) 319 |
Rules 248 and 258
|
Once the project comes to an end the services of the employees in the
project also come to an end. The appellant having been appointed on
work-charge basis in a project and the post not having made a regular one
so as to entitle him to receive pension benefit could not claim relying on
the equality basis being a persons similarly situated under certain mistake
decision arrived at or misconstruction of certain circular having no force
of law.
Abdur Rahman (Md) vs Government of Bangladesh represented by the
Secretary, Ministry of LGRD and Co-operatives and another 10 BLC (AD)
179.
|
Abdur Rahman (Md) vs Government of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of LGRD and Co-operatives and another |
10 BLC (AD) 179 |