The petitioner joined the then Pakistan Army in 1969 and was Commissioned as 2nd Lieutenant on 29.3.1970 and he was later on promoted as Captain in 1974 and thereafter in 1979 he was deputed to the Bangladesh Secretariat Transport Pool and was appointed as Director of Central Transport Pool. By memo dated 3.8.1980 the service of the petitioner was placed under Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral Resources and he was appointed on deputation as Manager of respondent no.2. He was subsequently appointed as officer on special duty in the Petrobangla by memo dated 13.6.1985. The corporation also later on appointed him as Senior Manager in Charge of Services Division and later on by memo dated 10.11 .1986 of the Chief Martial Law Administrators Secretariat, the petitioner was retired from Army service with direction to appoint him in civil as a permanent incumbent. Thereafter on 06.06.1987 the petitioner was permanently absorbed in the corporation and the respondent no.2 which is a subsidiary company of respondent no.1 -the petitioner being permanently absorbed in the office of Bangladesh Oil, Gas and Mineral Resources Corporation as employee is a public servant within the meaning of section 2(d) of the Public Servants (Retirement) Act, 1974 (Act 12 of 1974) and he is an officer of the corporation i.e. respondent no.1 and not of respondent no.2. B. Akram Ahmed Vs. Bangladesh Oil, Gas and Minaral Resources Cor. and Anr 14 BLT (AD)29

and Read with Section-35 of The Intermediate and Secondary Education Ordinance, 1961
The appellants tenure of office is admittedly governed by Section 35 of East Pakistan Ordinance No. XXIII of 1961. In that view of the matter, appellant cannot be asked to retire on completion of 57 years of age, as Act No. XII of 1974 is not applicable to a person who holds any office the tenure of which is determined by or under any law. Dewan Abdul Khaleque Vs. Ministry of Education & Ors. 6 BLT (AD)-81

Public servant—Authority of the Government to retire public servant in public interest after completion of 25 years service. Bangladesh Biman Corporation Vs Ltd. Col. (Rtd) Md. Zainul Abedin and ors. 20 BLD (AD) 230.

The High Court Division cannot, grant the prayer of petition by giving substan­tial part of the relief while adjudication of the substantive matter is still await­ing. Chairman, BADC vs S.M. Ali Imam (Md.Ruhul Amin J)(Civil) 2ADC 503

Section 4 of the Act is controlled by sec. 9(2)— Government is the sole judge of what is public interest. Dr. Nurul Islam Vs. Bangladesh, represented by “Secretary, Ministry of health.(1981) 33 DLR AD 201.

The scheme of the retirement of the petitioners under special circumstances is outside the ambit of the Public Servant’s (Retirement) Act, 1974. It was in fact a special arrangement for those who voluntarily want to retire on getting some financial benefits. There was no compulsion on the part of any of the petitioners to accept the special scheme of retirement. The petitioners went into voluntary retirement out of their own free will and as such they cannot be allowed to turn round to say that the scheme is illegal and is violative of the provisions of the Public Servant’s (Retirement) Act. 1974. Md. Nurul Haque Vs Govt. of Bangladesh and ors., 18 BLD(AD)142

The petitioner's contract service has been terminated in terms of the contract to which he was a party. Since his appointment has been cancelled in terms of the contract, the writ jurisdiction is not attracted to his case. Abdul Bari Sarker vs Bangladesh 46 DLR (AD) 37.

An employee can be retired from service by the Corporation in exercise of power under Rule 5 as well as Regulation 11A(2) and it is not correct to say that Rule 5 does not entitle the Corporation to retire its employee from service. Bangladesh Biman Corporation and others vs Md Yousuf Haroon and others 54 DLR (AD) 161.

Retirement with full pension benefits after completion of 25 years of service is not a punishment nor does it contain any stigma and it is altogether different from dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement which are different kinds of punishment described in Rule 3 of the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. MA Gafur and another vs Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Defence and another 56 DLR (AD) 205.

Empowering the Government to Retire a Government Servant on Completion of 25 years Service Suffers from Unconstitutionality. Dr. Nurul Islam Vs. Bangladesh represented by the Secy, Ministry of health (1981) 33 DLR (AD) 201.

Sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 9 is Violative of articles 27 and 29 of the Constitution since it gives scope to Discrimination. Dr. Nurul Islam Vs. Bangladesh represented by the Secy. Ministry of Health (1981) 33 DLR (AD) 201.

Violates the Guarantee given under article 135 of the constitution and is thus ultravires. Dr. Nurul Islam Vs. Bangladesh represented by the Secretary. Ministry of health (1981) 33 DLR (AD) 201.

—Section 9(2) is not violative of Art. 135 of The Bangladesh constitution, 1972.
Section 9(2) is not violative of Article 135 for die simple reason that protection under article 135 is strictly limited to dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, whereas premature retirement on completion of 25 years’ service with full pensioner benefits, does, under no circumstances, amount to dismissal or removal. Dr. Nurul Islam, Vs. Bangladesh (1981) 33 DLR (AD) 201.

After the amendment —
Shahabuddin Ahmed, J.— Government empowered u/s 9(2)(as it stands after the amendment) to retire government servant after 25 years of service in public interest without assigning any reason, and holding that Civil Appeal No. 70, 1981 be allowed and judgment of the High Court Division be set aside. Habibullah Khan. Vs. Shah Azharuddin Ahmed and ors. (1983) 35 DLR (AD) 72.

An overruled point of law cannot be ignored by this court and when a proposition of law has been settled, which is binding on all courts and though it is not binding on this court, it can overrule the said decision. A decision of a court overlooking a decision, or if it is contrary to law, constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record justifying its review.
[6]The Appellate Division held that there is error apparent in the face of the judgment. If the previous judgment is allowed to stand, that would lead to failure of justice. There is error which is apparent on the face of the record in the judgment. The error is so patent and glaring that it can be located without any elaborate argument and without any scope for any controversy with regard to such error, which at a glance stares at the face. An overruled point of law cannot be ignored by this court and when a proposition of law has been settled, which is binding on all courts and though it is not binding on this court, it can overrule the said decision. A decision of a court overlooking a decision, or if it is contrary to law, constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record justifying its review. It is immaterial whether such error occurred by reason of lawyer’s mistake or oversight on the part of the court.
Bangladesh Biman Airlines Limited and others -Vs.- Captain Mir Mazharul Huq and others (Civil) 12 ALR (AD) 122-126

Voluntary retirement–– On 2-5-2017 the writ-petitioner-respondent No.1 submitted the application for voluntary retirement without any reservation with effect from 10-7-2017. It is the statutory legal right of the writ petitioner to claim such voluntary retirement and the writ-respondent No.4-petitioner No.3 accepted the said application of retirement; therefore, the writ-petitioner cannot step back from his choice of voluntary retirement. The High Court Division totally failed to consider the fact that the moment the respondent No.1 resigned from his service, factually and legally, he ceased to have any relationship with DNCC as its employee. So, the writ-petitioner could not make any prayer for either reinstatement in the service or withdrawal of his resignation letter submitted earlier. The DNCC is also not bound to reinstatement of the writ-petitioner in the service since DNCC neither removed nor dismissed him from service. More so, in his resignation letter the writ-petitioner-respondent No.1 did not mention any case of forced retirement. ––Therefore, the judgment and order of the High Court Division cannot sustain in the eye of law and the same is liable to be set-aside. .....Dhaka North City Corporation(DNCC) =VS= Mir Akkas Ali, (Civil), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 186] ....View Full Judgment

Voluntary retirement accepted by the BADC Authority their retirement became effective–
After 10 years of their voluntary retirement and after receiving full financial benefits as offered the prayers for reinstatement cannot be termed as reasonable and fair. After having applied for VRS and taken the money it is not open to them to contend that they exercised the option under any kind of coercion and undue influence. Who had accepted the ex gratia payment or any other benefit under the scheme, could not have resiled therefrom. It became past and closed transaction. The writ petitioners having accepted the benefit could not be permitted to approbate and reprobate nor they be permitted to resile from their earlier stand. Our considered opinion is that the writ petitionerrespondents were not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. The High Court Division committed error of law in directing to reinstate the writ petitioner-respondents to their former posts and to pay their back salaries. The judgment and order of the High Court Division are set aside. The Civil Petitions are disposed of in the light of the decision of the appeals. The review petitions are dismissed accordingly. ...BADC, Dhaka =VS= Shohidul Islam(Md.), (Civil), [6 LM (AD) 234] ....View Full Judgment

The respondent had not completed 25 years of service at the relevant time and as such his option for retirement was not exercised as per law, That being so, the proviso to section 9(1) of the Act that the option once exercised shall be final and shall not be permitted to be modified or withdrawn cannot be said to be applicable to the respondent. Bangladesh Parjatan Corporation & Ors Vs. Md. Mafizur Rahman & Ors. 2 BLT (AD)-49

The appellant was appointed as an Assistant Communication Engineer in the Civil Aviation Department and it is his case that by dint of merit he was gradually promoted to the post of Director, Civil Aviation Authority. In 1985 the Government formed Civil Aviation Authority of Bangladesh by abolishing the Department of Civil Aviation by Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance, 1985, about 2000 employees of the civil Aviation Department were transferred by the Government to the newly created Authority— They formed a Samannya Parishad and launched a movement for withdrawal of the Ordinance of 1985 —The appellant contended that on the basis of the secret report the Government retired the appellant under section 9(2) of Act XII of 1974, mala fide and in colourable exercise of power.
Held : The enquiry was made after a Gazette Notification. It was, therefore, not a secret enquiry as alleged by the appellant. It was a public and open enquiry. The persons who were appointed to conduct the enquiry were all responsible high officials of the Government against whom no complaint has been made by the appellant — The final Authority who took the decision to retire the appellant was supposed to know that a retirement under section 9 (2) of the Act is not a punishment at all—We do not think that under the special circum stances of this case it was a colourable exercise of power or a Misuse or abuse of power, as urged by the appellant. AbuTaleb Vs. Govt of Bangladesh 3 BLT (AD)-231

In the instant case the writ petitioners, who were employees of the Biman, therefore, fall well within the meaning of a ‘public servant’ as defined in Section 2(d) of the Act and it is only the Government who had the power to retire them in exercise of the power under Section 9(2) of the Act. Biman Corporation & Ors. Vs. LC. (Rtd) M Zainul Abedin & Ors. 9BLT(AD)-235

read with Bangladesh Biman Corporation Employees(Service) Regulations, 1979
Regulation-11A(2)
Whether the respondents could be retired by the Bangladesh Biman Corporation from their services on completion of 25 years of service under regulation JIA(’2) of the Bangladesh Biman Corporation Employees (Service) Regulations, 1979 as amended by S.R.O. 561184 dated 5 February 1984 without assigning any reason.
Held: The respondents are clearly to be governed by Section 9(2) of the Act and not by the Regulations so far as the retiring authority is concerned. Bangladesh Biman Corporation & Org. Vs. Md. Yousuf Haroon & Ors. 10 BLT (AD)-22

In the instant ease the writ petitioners, who were employees of the Biman, therefore, fall well within the meaning of a "public servant" as defined in Section 2(d) of the Act and it is only the Government who had the power to retire them in exercise of the power under Section 9(2) of the Act. Biman Corporation & Ors. Vs. L.C (Rtd) M Zainul Abedin & Ors. 9BLT(AD)-235

read with
Bangladesh Biman Corporation Employees (Service) Regulations, 1979
Regulation- 11A(2)
Whether the respondents could he retired by the Bangladesh Biman Corporation from their services on completion of 25 years of service under regulation 11A(2) of the Bangladesh Biman Corporation Employees (Service) Regulations. 1979 as amended by S.R.O. 56L/S4 dated 5 February 19S4 without assigning any reason.
Held: The respondents are clearly to be governed by Section 9(2) of the Act and not by the Regulations so far as the retiring authority is concerned. Bangladesh Biman Corporation & Ors. Vs. Md. Yousuf Haroon & Ors. 10 BLT (AD)-22.

Government has power to retire public servant in the public interest on completion of 25 years of service—
The power of the Government under section 9(2) of the Public Servants (Retirement) Act, 1974 has not been delegated to the.Biman authority and as such the Biman authority as held by the apex court, can not retire its employee on completion of 25 years of service resorting to the provision of Regulation 11(A)(2) in the manner as contemplated under subsection (2) of section 9 of the Public Servants (Retirement) Act, 1974. Mir. Mazharul Huq (Capt.) Vs. Bangladesh Biman Corporation and others 13 MLR (2008) (AD) 1.

Government is only empowered to retire a public servant on completion of 25 years service—
Pension and General Provident Fund Rules, 1987—
Rule 5(kha)— Declared redundant and has no bearing on the subject matter—
The appellant an ex-army personnel after being absorbed in the service of the Bangladesh Oil, Gas and Mineral Resources Corporation was serving on deputation in the Bakhrabad Gas system which has no authority to retire him on completion of 25 years service. It is only the Government which is empowered under section 9(2) of the Public Servants (Retirement) Act, 1974 to retire a public servant. Rule 5(kha) of the Pension and General Provident Fund Rules. 1987 is declared redundant and has no bearing on the subject. B. Akram Ahmad Khan Chowdhury (Capt, Retd.) Vs. Bangladesh Oil, Gas and Mineral Resources Corporation, represented by its Chairman and another 14 MLR (2009) (AD) 81.

Did not allow the plaintiff the benefit of leave preparatory to retirement and thus caused him a financial loss to the tune of about Tk.50 lakhs.
High Court Division committed an ille­gality in withdrawing the suit from the trial Court to the High Court Division without assigning any reason, without following the requirements of law and without so much as giving an opportuni­ty to the learned Advocate for the appel­lants to place the appellants' point of view thus causing great prejudice to the appellants. Government of Bangladesh and another vs. Md. Raziur Rahman Chowdhury (Mustafa Kamal J) (Civil) 4ADC 329

Considering the overriding nature of section 3 of the Act it can be very well said that whatever be the provision of any regulation or bye-law, the Regulations under which the writ peti­tioners seek cover will not prevail if it is inconsistent with the Act. Bangladesh Biman Corporation vs. Md. Zainul Abedin and ors. (Bimalendu Bikash Roy Choudury J) (Civil) 4ADC 31

If a Government servant is retired from service not on consideration of his service record but on consideration of an impartial report submitted by impartial high Government officials after an open enquiry on an incident of an extremely grave nature, then it is for the Govern­ment to decide whether to take disciplinary proceedings against the leading lights of the incident or to retire them in the public interest. Abu Taleb vs Govenment of Bangladesh 47 DLR (AD) 138.

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

Defects of the Act — No policy or principle for guidance of exercise of discretion by the Government has been laid down in the impugned Act. Nor has the Government laid down such principle for its guidance in the rules framed under the Act. Dr.Nurul Islam, Vs. Bangladesh represented by the Secy. Ministry of health (1981) 33 DLR (AD) 201.

The subsequent amendment to the Public Servants (Retirement) Act 1974 will not be automatically incorporated in the Service Regulations of the Bank, until and unless the Bank chooses to adopt the same by amending the relevant Service Regulations. .....Pubali Bank Ltd =VS= Abdur Rashid Miah & others, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 420] ....View Full Judgment

The subsequent amendment to the Public Servants (Retirement) Act 1974 will not be automatically incorporated in the Service Regulations of the Bank, until and unless the Bank chooses to adopt the same by amending the relevant Service Regulations. …Pubali Bank Limited vs. Abdur Rashid Miah & ors, (Civil), 3 SCOB [2015] AD 24

There was no finding that the petitioners had any such legal right to have their period of service extended up to 59 years of their age. Indeed, in our view the Bank giving such benefits to its employees by means of a circular post dates the writ petitioners’ superannuation and is, therefore, not applicable in their case. …Pubali Bank Limited vs. Abdur Rashid Miah & ors, (Civil), 3 SCOB [2015] AD 24 ....View Full Judgment

Voluntary Retirement Scheme
The scheme of retirement of the petitioners were under some special circumstances and that was outside the ambit of the Public Servants (Retirement) Act, 1974. It was in fact a special arrangement made for those who voluntarily want to retire on getting certain monetary and other financial benefits—the special arrangement being not a law cannot be said to be illegal and unconstitutional. Md. Nurul Haque Vs. Ministry of Communications & Ors. 6BLT (AD)-212