Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (AD)
Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980 (VII of 1981) | |||
---|---|---|---|
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation | Head Note | Parties Name | Reference/Citation |
Sections 2(aa) and 4 |
Anti-Corruption Commission is not included in the schedule to the
Administrative Tribunal Act–
|
Durnity Daman Commission =VS= Humaiyun Kabir(Md) | 7 LM (AD) 109 |
Section 2, clause (b ) |
The decision of the Appellate Tribunal like that of the Tribunal is immune from any review under Article 102 because Article 117 also applies to the Appellate Tribunal. Mujibur Rahman vs Bangladesh 44 DLR (AD) 111 |
Mujibur Rahman vs Bangladesh | 44 DLR (AD) 111 |
Sections 2 and 4 |
The Administrative Tribunal Act 1980 being a subsequent Act to the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and Government Servants' (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985 the provisions of Administrative Tribunal Act shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the petitioner's application in respect of terms and conditions of his service. Mozibul Huq vs Chairman, 1st Labour Court and others 55 DLR (AD) 911 . |
Mozibul Huq vs Chairman, 1st Labour Court and others | 55 DLR (AD) 911 |
Sections 2(aa) and 4 |
The transferability or non-transferability of the appellant's service is a condition of his employment and the matter clearly comes within the purview of section 4 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1981. The Administrative Tribunal has the full power to give complete relief to an applicant including drawing up of contempt proceeding against an employer refusing to comply with its order. Abdul Mannan Talukder vs Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation 42 DLR (AD) 104. |
Abdul Mannan Talukder vs Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation | 42 DLR (AD) 104 |
Sections 3 and 5 |
There is no command in the Constitution that the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is substitute or co-equal to the High Court Division. It is left to the legislature, after establishing the Tribunals, to make necessary provisions in this regard for the carrying out of the functions of the tribunals. Mujibur Rahman vs Bangladesh 44 DLR (AD) 111. |
Mujibur Rahman vs Bangladesh | 44 DLR (AD) 111 |
Section 4 |
The Writ petition is not maintainable–
|
Birendra Nath Ojha =VS= Government of Bangladesh | 7 LM (AD) 358 |
Section 4 |
Jurisdiction to file AT case– The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980
along with the schedule annexed thereto it appears that the Anti-Corruption
Commission has not been included therein and, as such, the decision
referred to above squarely applies in this case. Again the Anti-Corruption
Commission being creature of statute and unless that statutory body is
included in the schedule to the Act, 1980, there arises no question of
availability of the jurisdiction before the Administrative Tribunal.
|
Anti Corruption Commission =VS= Ahsan Ali(Md) | 10 LM (AD) 113 |
Section 4 |
We note that the Appellate Tribunal found that there was no dispute that
the petitioner (respondent herein) cross-
|
Government of Bangladesh =VS= Abdul Isa Md. Nizamul Islam | 5 LM (AD) 70 |
Section 4(2) |
Promotion–
|
Md. Mahmudul Haque =VS= Government of Bangladesh & others | 1 LM (AD) 123 |
Section 4(2) |
The Administrative Appellate Tribunal came into a finding that while passing the impugned decision the Administrative Tribunal failed to consider that the departmental proceeding against respondent No.1 was not initiated and disposed of legally and that the Administrative Tribunal arrived at a wrong finding in disallowing the case causing serious miscarriage of justice. The findings arrived at and the decision made by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal having been based on proper appreciation of law and fact do not call for interference. .....Janata Bank & another =VS= Md. Minhaj Uddin Ahmed & another, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 178] ....View Full Judgment |
Janata Bank & another =VS= Md. Minhaj Uddin Ahmed & another | 1 LM (AD) 178 |
Section 4(2) |
The termination of the appellant was a “termination simpliciter” without attaching any stigma and that in fact no departmental proceedings were brought against the appellant in spite of serious allegations against him. In such a situation it would be illogical to sustain the order of the Administrative Tribunal thereby reinstating the appellant in service on an unwilling employer. Admittedly, the appellant was entitled to get 3 months’ salary in lieu of notice. The Administrative Appellate Tribunal, therefore, rightly allowed the appeal in part setting aside the judgement of the Administrative Tribunal. The respondent Grameen Bank is hereby directed to pay the appellant Md. Azizul Haque salary for two years at the rate which was paid to him as on the date of his termination of service. With the above direction, the appeal is disposed of, without, however, any order as to costs. .....Azizul Haque(Md.) =VS= Grameen Bank, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 51] ....View Full Judgment |
Azizul Haque(Md.) =VS= Grameen Bank | 5 LM (AD) 51 |
Section 4(2), 6 |
Limitation–
|
Ministry of Finance =VS= Md. Mominur Rahman | 5 LM (AD) 335 |
Section 4 |
Considering the legal position the Administrative:Tribunal found that the case was filed well within time. The Administrative Appellate Tribunal also came to the finding that the respondent had option to move the Director-General under Rule 1725 of the Railway Establishment Code which has been accordingly done and the case has been filed within six months from the order passed by the Director-General. No illegality and wrong has been committed by the Tribunals below. Director-General/ Secretary, Railway Division and others vs Md Elahi Baksha 6 BLC (AD) 94. |
Director-General/ Secretary, Railway Division and others vs Md Elahi Baksha | 6 BLC (AD) 94 |
Section 4 |
Transfer of a trade union leader—Plea of, protection by a person in the service of a statutory public authority—Provisions of I.R.O. empowering Labour Court to give protection to a trade union leader against his harassment by transfer are not applicable to those leaders who are working in statutory public authorities like the H.B.F.C.—The basic status of the appellant (trade union leader) is that he is a worker of the Corporation and transferability or non-transferability of his service is a condition of his employment and the matter clearly comes within the purview of the Administrative Tribunal which has the full power to give complete relief to applicant. The right of a trade union leader in such a case must yield to the supervening provision of the Constitution—Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (XXIIII of 1969) S. 47B Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972, Article 117(2). Abdul Mannan Talukder Vs. Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation and another; 10 BLD (AD) 71. |
Abdul Mannan Talukder Vs. Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation and another | 10 BLD (AD) 71 |
Section 4(1) |
Mr. Mahbubey Alam, learned Attorney General appearing for the petitioners, has taken us to the judgments and argued that since the appeals had arisen out of the same judgment, it was incumbent upon the Administrative Appellate Tribunal to hear and dispose of both the appeals analogously in order to avoid conflicting decisions, and as a matter of fact, it had delivered two conflicting judgments, which escaped the notice of this Division while disposing of the leave petitions and the same is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. It is further contended that the Administrative Tribunal while maintaining the punishment of the respondent came to a definite finding that some of the charges brought against the respondent had been satisfactorily proved but the Administrative Appellate Tribunal without reversing those findings allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent mechanically. In view of the above, it is contended that the judgments of this Division deserve reconsideration for ends of justice. Government vs. Md Masud Miah (S.K. Sin ha J) (Civil) 10 ADC 60 |
Government vs. Md Masud Miah | 10 ADC 60 |
Section 4(1) |
Mr. Mahbubcy Alam, learned Attorney General appearing for the petitioners, has taken us to the judgments and argued that since the appeals had arisen out of the same judgment, it was incumbent upon the Administrative Appellate Tribunal to hear and dispose of both the appeals analogously in order to avoid conflicting decisions, and as a matter of fact, it had delivered two conflicting judgments, which escaped the notice of this Division while disposing of the leave petitions and the same is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. It is further contended that the Administrative Tribunal while maintaining the punishment of the respondent came to a definite finding that some of the charges brought against the respondent had been satisfactorily proved but the Administrative Appellate Tribunal without reversing those findings allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent mechanically. In view of the above, it is contended that the judgments of this Division deserve reconsideration for ends of justice. Government vs. Md Masud Miah (S.K. Sin ha J) (Civil) 10 ADC 60 |
Government vs. Md Masud Miah | 10 ADC 60 |
Section 4(2) |
The Code of Civil Procedure
|
Agrani Bank Limited =VS= Md. Salek Uddin | 14 LM (AD) 179 |
Section 4 |
Petitioners have not been given· any right· under the Act to move the Tribunal to implement the judgment of the Appellate Division and the Administrative Appellate Tribunal given in respect of a different person who filed cases not in a representative capacity or in the nature of a group or class action but as an individual applicant. Hajizuddin (Md) and three others vs Bangladesh Bank, represented by Governor and others 49 DLR (AD) 147. |
Hajizuddin (Md) and three others vs Bangladesh Bank, represented by Governor and others | 49 DLR (AD) 147 |
Section 4 |
In altering the punishment of compulsory retirement to stoppage of 3 annual increments for 3 years under sub-rule 2(c) of rule 4 of the Rules and thereupon in making the order for the reinstatement of the respondent the Tribunals did not commit any illegality as it was within the jurisdiction of the Tribunals to see the proportionality of the sentence in the given facts of the case. Government of Bangladesh and others vs Md Afzal Hossain Ansari 55 DLR (AD) 65. |
Government of Bangladesh and others vs Md Afzal Hossain Ansari | 55 DLR (AD) 65 |
Section 4(2) |
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
|
Rabiul Karim(Md.) =VS= Golam Morshed Khan | 13 LM (AD) 272 |
Section 4 |
Period of limitation in filing an application before the Administrative
Tribunal– This Court in a number of cases earlier decided that it is the
2nd proviso to sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Act, 1980 read with the
period of limitation as mentioned in the 3rd proviso, i.e. two months plus
six months which shall govern the period of limitation in filing an
application before the Administrative Tribunal and a case filed before the
Administrative Tribunal after the expiry of the said period (two months +
six months) shall be barred by limitation.
|
AKM Jalaluddin Ahmed =VS= Ministry of Education, Bangladesh | 8 LM (AD) 335 |
Section 4(1) and 4(2) |
The Administrative Tribunal is vested with the exclusive jurisdiction under
section 4(1) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980 to hear and determine
applications made by any person in the service of Republic or statutory
public authority as specified in the schedule in respect of the terms and
conditions of his service including pension rights or in respect of any
action taken in relation to him in the service as aforesaid. The proviso to
sub section (2) of section 4 provides that "no application in respect of an
order, decision or action which can be set aside, varied or modified by a
higher administrative authority under any law for the time being inforce
relating to the terms and conditions of the service of the Republic or of
any statutory public authority or the discipline of that service could be
made to the Administrative Tribunal until such higher authority has taken a
decision on the matter". The applicant must be an aggrieved person by any
order or decision or action taken by the authority which confers the powers
and jurisdiction of the higher Administrative Tribunal subject to
fulfilment of two conditions as provided in the proviso.
|
Ministry of Food, Bangladesh =VS= A.B.M. Siddique Mia | 8 LM (AD) 240 |
Sections 4(2), 6(2A) |
The case before Administrative Tribunal must be presented within six months
of the decision of the appellate authority, and if the authority does not
make a decision on the employee's appeal within two months of the appeal
being filed, it will be deemed to have been disallowed and the case before
the Administrative Tribunal must be filed within a period of six months
therefrom, i.e. within eight months from the date of filing the appeal–
By the order of the authority dated 06.10.1998 the appellant was demoted to
his lower rank for a period of two years, against which he filed appeal
before the authority, namely the Government, on 13.10.1998. The appellate
authority by order dated 12.08.1999 demoted the appellant to his lower rank
for ever.. The appellant then filed a case before the Administrative
Tribunal on 08.02.2000 challenging both the orders dated 06.10.1998 and
12.08.1999. However, the requirement of the law as enunciated in the second
proviso to section 4(2)of the Act, 1980 is that the case before
Administrative Tribunal must be presented within six months of the decision
of the appellate authority, and if the authority does not make a decision
on the employee's appeal within two months of the appeal being filed, it
will be deemed to have been disallowed and the case before the
Administrative Tribunal must be filed within a period of six months
therefrom, i.e. within eight months from the date of filing the appeal.
|
Anwar Hossain Biswas =VS= Government of Bangladesh | 8 LM (AD) 46 |
Section 4(3) |
Administrative tribunal has the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the matters when a person in the service of the Republic is aggrieved by any order or decision in respect of the terms and conditions of his service including pension rights or by any action taken in relation to him as a person in the service of the Republic. In the present case, the writ-petitioner-respondent No.1 is a person in the service of the Republic as per the provision of section 4(3) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980 and as such the Tribunal has the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the matter regarding the terms and conditions of the service of the writ petitioner-respondent No.1. ...Secretary, Posts & Telecom Div. & anr Vs. Shudangshu Shekhar & ors, (Civil), 18 SCOB [2023] AD 11 ....View Full Judgment |
Secretary, Posts & Telecom Div. & anr Vs. Shudangshu Shekhar & ors | 18 SCOB [2023] AD 11 |
Sections 4, 6(2) |
The case was filed prematurely and on such view the Administrative Appellate Tribunal dismissed the case– The Appellate Tribunal observed that from the amended prayers it appeared that cause of action for filing the petition before the Administrative Tribunal arose on 13.08.2003 whereas the petition was filed on 15.07.2002. So the case was filed prematurely and on such view the Administrative Appellate Tribunal dismissed the case. It further appears that while the case was filed the departmental proceeding against the petitioner was pending, therefore, he had no cause of action to file the case. But the Tribunal failed to consider this factual aspect of the case, when it was not proper for the Tribunal to pass any order directing reinstatement of the petitioner. In view of the above Administrative Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal by the impugned decision which was done legally. This civil petition for leave to appeal is dismissed. ...Jalal(Md.) =VS= Bangladesh, (Civil), 2021(2) [11 LM (AD) 86] ....View Full Judgment |
Jalal(Md.) =VS= Bangladesh | 11 LM (AD) 86 |
Sections 5, 6 and 12 |
Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985
|
Ministry of Forest, Bangladesh =VS= Kiran Sankar Sarker | 15 LM (AD) 447 |
Section 6(1) |
It is seen from the provision of section 6(1) of the Administrative
Tribunal Act that an appeal lies from an order of the Administrative
Tribunal. In the instant case the Administrative Tribunal refused the
prayer for ad-interim order restraining the authority from granting
promotion to the respondents. So the respondent Nos. 1-11 herein if were
aggrieved by the order so passed by the Administrative Tribunal they were
required as per provision of section 6(1) of the Administrative Tribunal
Act to file appeal, if any, they would have thought fit. But instead of
doing that they were not well advised to file the writ petition seeking the
relief identical to the relief sought in the Administrative Tribunal case
with the sole object of having an ad-interim order restraining the
authority from taking steps for the promotion of the Assistant
Superintendent of Police to the post of Additional Superintendent of
Police.
|
Khalilur Rahman, ASP SB, Dhaka vs Md Kamrul Ahsan | 10 BLC (AD) 193 |
Section 6A |
In the instant case PSC recommended for regularisation of the opposite
parties No. 3-86 on 28-1-1998 and thereupon the said opposite parties
became the members of the Bangladesh Civil Service (Enforcement: Police
Cadre) and that being so in law they can only claim seniority in the Cadre
Service on and from 28-1-1998 and no other date.
|
Khalilur Rahman (Md) PPM and others vs Md Kamrul Ahsan and others | 8 BLC (AD) 80 |
Section 6(2) |
Aggrieved person and necessary parties
|
Md. Abdul Mannan and ors Vs. Mr. Hasan Mahmud Khondker and others | 16 BLD (AD) 147 |
Section 6(2A) |
The present petitioners filed the above mentioned Administrative Appellate Tribunal Appeal against the judgment and order dated 12.08.2008 passed by the Administrative Tribunal No.l, Dhaka in Administrative Tribunal Case No.l31 of 2005 with an application under section 6(2A) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980 praying for condonation of delay of 2 (two) months and 6 (six) days in filing the appeal. Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh vs. Md. Mizan ur-Rahman (Nazmun Ara Sultana J) (Civil) 9 ADC 846 |
Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh vs. Md. Mizan ur-Rahman | 9 ADC 846 |
Section 6(2) |
Appeal must be filed in 3 months.
|
Government of Bangladesh -Vs.- Ansarul Huq | 3 ALR (AD) 209 |
Section 7 |
Powers and Procedure of Tribunals
|
Kamrul Hasan vs. Bangladesh and others | 16 BLD (AD) 35 |
Section 7 |
The Administrative Tribunal has no power to grant interim relief in respect of a case pending before it for final adjudication. Kamrul Hasan vs Bangladesh and others 49 DLR (AD) 44. |
Kamrul Hasan vs Bangladesh and others | 49 DLR (AD) 44 |
Section 10A |
Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980
|
Government of Bangladesh =VS= Md. Abdul Maleque Miah | 11 LM (AD) 12 |