Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (AD & HCD)
Public Servants (Retirement) Act 1974 | |||
---|---|---|---|
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation | Head Note | Parties Name | Reference/Citation |
Section 2(d) |
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 |
B. Akram Ahmed Vs. Bangladesh Oil, Gas and Minaral Resources Cor. and Anr | 14 BLT (AD) 29 |
Section 2(d)(VI) |
and Read with Section-35 of The Intermediate and Secondary Education
Ordinance, 1961
|
Dewan Abdul Khaleque Vs. Ministry of Education & Ors. | 6 BLT (AD) 81 |
Sections 2(d) and 9(2) |
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. |
Bangladesh Biman Corporation Vs Ltd. Col. (Rtd) Md. Zainul Abedin and ors. | 20 BLD (AD) 230 |
Section 3 |
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 |
Chairman, BADC vs S.M. Ali Imam | 2 ADC 503 |
Sections 4 and 9(2) |
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. |
Dr. Nurul Islam Vs. Bangladesh, represented by “Secretary, Ministry of health | 33 DLR AD 201 |
Sections 4 and 9 |
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 |
Md. Nurul Haque Vs Govt. of Bangladesh and ors., | 18 BLD (AD) 142 |
Section 5(1) |
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. |
Abdul Bari Sarker vs Bangladesh | 46 DLR (AD) 37 |
Section 9(2) |
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. |
Bangladesh Biman Corporation and others vs Md Yousuf Haroon and others | 54 DLR (AD) 161 |
Section 9(2) |
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. |
MA Gafur and another vs Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Defence and another | 56 DLR (AD) 205 |
Section 9(2) |
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. |
Dr. Nurul Islam Vs. Bangladesh represented by the Secy, Ministry of health | 33 DLR (AD) 201 |
Section 9(2) |
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. |
Dr. Nurul Islam Vs. Bangladesh represented by the Secy. Ministry of Health | 33 DLR (AD) 201 |
Section 9(2) |
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. |
Dr. Nurul Islam Vs. Bangladesh represented by the Secretary. Ministry of health | 33 DLR (AD) 201 |
Section 9(2) |
—Section 9(2) is not violative of Art. 135 of The Bangladesh
constitution, 1972.
|
Dr. Nurul Islam, Vs. Bangladesh | 33 DLR (AD) 201 |
Section 9(2) |
After the amendment —
|
Habibullah Khan. Vs. Shah Azharuddin Ahmed and ors. | 35 DLR (AD) 72 |
Section 9(2) |
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.
|
Bangladesh Biman Airlines Limited and others -Vs.- Captain Mir Mazharul Huq and others | 12 ALR (AD) 122 |
Section 9(1) |
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 |
Dhaka North City Corporation(DNCC) =VS= Mir Akkas Ali | 14 LM (AD) 186 |
Section 9 |
Voluntary retirement accepted by the BADC Authority their retirement became
effective–
|
BADC, Dhaka =VS= Shohidul Islam(Md.) | 6 LM (AD) 234 |
Section 9 (1) Proviso |
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 |
Bangladesh Parjatan Corporation & Ors Vs. Md. Mafizur Rahman & Ors. | 2 BLT (AD) 49 |
Section 9 (2) |
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.
|
AbuTaleb Vs. Govt of Bangladesh | 3 BLT (AD) 231 |
Section 9 (2) |
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 |
Biman Corporation & Ors. Vs. LC. (Rtd) M Zainul Abedin & Ors. | 9 BLT (AD) 235 |
Section 9(2) |
read with Bangladesh Biman Corporation Employees(Service) Regulations,
1979
|
Bangladesh Biman Corporation & Org. Vs. Md. Yousuf Haroon & Ors. | 10 BLT (AD) 22 |
Section 9(2) |
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 |
Biman Corporation & Ors. Vs. L.C (Rtd) M Zainul Abedin & Ors. | 9 BLT (AD) 235 |
Section 9(2) |
read with
|
Bangladesh Biman Corporation & Ors. Vs. Md. Yousuf Haroon & Ors. | 10 BLT (AD) 22 |
Section 9(2) |
Government has power to retire public servant in the public interest on
completion of 25 years of service—
|
Mir. Mazharul Huq (Capt.) Vs. Bangladesh Biman Corporation and others | 13 MLR (AD) 1 |
Section 9(2) |
Government is only empowered to retire a public servant on completion of 25
years service—
|
B. Akram Ahmad Khan Chowdhury (Capt, Retd.) Vs. Bangladesh Oil, Gas and Mineral Resources Corporation, represented by its Chairman and another | 14 MLR (AD) 81 |
Section 9(1) |
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.
|
Government of Bangladesh and another vs. Md. Raziur Rahman Chowdhury | 4 ADC 329 |
Section 9(2), 2(d), 2(d)(i) & (vi) |
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 |
Bangladesh Biman Corporation vs. Md. Zainul Abedin and ors. | 4 ADC 31 |
Section 9(2) |
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. |
Abu Taleb vs Govenment of Bangladesh | 47 DLR (AD) 138 |
Section 10 |
Bangladesh Service Rules, Part-1
|
Sanaullah(Md.) =VS= Government of Bangladesh | 12 LM (AD) 319 |
Defects of the Act — |
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. |
Dr.Nurul Islam, Vs. Bangladesh represented by the Secy. Ministry of health | 33 DLR (AD) 201 |
Amendment will not be automatically incorporated- |
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 |
Pubali Bank Ltd =VS= Abdur Rashid Miah & others | 1 LM (AD) 420 |
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
|
Pubali Bank Limited vs. Abdur Rashid Miah & ors | 3 SCOB [2015] AD 24 | |
Voluntary Retirement Scheme- |
Voluntary Retirement Scheme
|
Md. Nurul Haque Vs. Ministry of Communications & Ors. | 6 BLT (AD) 212 |