The Services (Re-organization and Conditions) Act, 1975
Sections 2, 3 and 5 r/w
The State Owned Manufacturing Industries Workers (Terms and Conditions of Service) Act, 1974 r/w
Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 r/w
Employment Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965
A trade union can definitely enter into agreement with the management for improvement of the service and conditions of its members, but not in derogation of the laws prevalent at the relevant time–
Findings of the High Court Division and the leave granting order as quoted above, the only question which is to be decided in the appeal is whether the agreement entered into by the trade unions and the corporation on behalf of the nationalized enterprises, namely, Carew and Company on 20.11.1984 fixing the scales of pay and grades and other emoluments in violation of the laws could be said to be valid and implemented and whether the said agreement created any vested right to the writ-petitioners and the same could be enforced by invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court Division under article 102 of the Constitution.
A trade union can definitely enter into agreement with the management for improvement of the service and conditions of its members, but not in derogation of the laws prevalent at the relevant time. We find no merit in this appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed. …Sohrab Ali Miah =VS= Bangladesh Sugar & Food Industries Corporation, (Civil), 2019 (2) [7 LM (AD) 56] ....View Full Judgment

The appellants' argument that by receiveing the same scale of pay the preventive officers and appraisers have become members of the same grade with effect from 26-6-83 and therefore, the Preventive Officers became senior as a class to those who have been appointed directly as Appraisers after 26-6-83 cannot be accepted for the simple reason that these two classes of officers are graded differently and these posts have not been treated as equivalent posts, although they are drawing the same scale of pay. Azizul Huq Sikder and others vs Collector of Customs, Chittagong 49 DLR (AD) 172.

Respondent Nos. 2-61 belong to 1st BCS Examination whilst the appellants' batch belongs to 2nd BCS Examination and hence appellants are as a batch junior to the respondents. The amended sub-rule 3(g) is neither illegal nor in contravention to the conditions laid down in the advertisement- The notional date of joining had to be worked out" in order to make the seniority of the first BCS batch consistent with the BCS Seniority Rules of 1983. There is no scope for any confusion as to the inter-se seniority between the appellants and respondent Nos. 2-61 as the respondents are senior in the service to the appellants. AHM Mustain Billah and 4 others vs Bangladesh and 60 others 6 BLC (AD) 7.

In exercise of power under section 4 of the Services (Reorganisation and Conditions) Act, 1975 the Health Directorate and Family Planning Directorate Order 1978 was published in the official Gazette on 27-12-98 being SRO No. 293 which having not been challenged the petitioner cannot challenge the subsequent order and notifications, etc. made in exercise of power given in the said SRO. Syeedur Rahman Khan (Md) vs Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare 6 BLC (AD) 53.

The Grades of Appraisers and Preventive Officers still remain the same as in the Notification dated 20-12-77. Preventive Officers cannot claim upgradation by implication. It must be done by an act of volition by the Government by Gazette Notification. Azizul Huque Sikder and others vs Collector of Customs, Chittagong and others 49 DLR (AD) 172.

Power of the Government to reorganise services—Scale once granted cannot be withdrawn long after—
Government under section 5 of the Act has the power to reorganise services and alter the terms and conditions of service. Time scale granted earlier and having been drawn by the Government Servant for long cannot be interfered with on ground of non-entitlement. Bangladesh Government represented by Secretary Ministry of Industries Vs. Md. Shahjahan and others. 2, MLR (1997) (AD) 351.

Read with The Services (Grades, Pay and Allowances) Order, 1977 Section-5 Read with The Surplus Public Servants Absorption Ordinance, 1985 (No. XXJV of 1985)
Sections-5 & 6
Whether in a graded service, seniority counts from the date of entry in a grade
The appellant joined the President’s Secretariat in Islamabad on 29.9.70 as an Upper Division Assistant. On return to Bangladesh he was taken in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the same post carrying a scale of pay of Tk. 310-670/- which was in Grade-VIl of National Scale of Pay. His service was declared as surplus by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs by a memo date 23.6.76 and his name was forwarded to the Ministry of Establishment for absorption. By an order dated 20.11.76 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs asked the appellant to join the Taxes Department as Inspector of Taxes. He was released from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 22.11.76 and on the same day he was absorbed as Inspector of Taxes in the office of the Income Tax Commissioner, Dhaka (North Zone) in Central Salary Circle-2 in the same scale of pay as above. At the time of filing the petition before the Administrative Tribunal the appellant was serving in the Contractors’ Circle-3 at Dhaka (East Zone). At the time of preparation of the List of Seniority the appellant found that his period of service was counted not from the date of his joining the service on 29.9.70, but from the date of joining as Inspector of Taxes on 22.11.76. Appellants prayer for a direction to reckon the period from 29.9.70 for the purpose of counting his seniority.
Held: Establishment Division issued Memo No. ED(R-1 1) S-59/77-25 (500) dated 20.3.79. This memo is the sheet-anchor of the appellant’s case. It is his case that in 1976 the post of Inspector of Taxes and an Upper Division Assistant were equivalent posts because they carried the same grade and scale of pay and there was no other yardstick of measurement of equivalence between a minister rial post and an executive post at that time.
The appellant is right. Subject to the implementation of the recommendations of the National Pay Commission by an order notified in the Official Gazette under section 5 of Act No. XXXII of 1975, if the appellant’s seniority was fixed at any time between 22.11.76 (when he joined the Taxes Department as Inspector of Taxes) and 30.6.77 (When the New National Grade and Scale of Pay was not yet introduced), he could have reasonably claimed the counting of his past service for determining his seniority. The respondents could not then have been heard to say that the post of Inspector and the post of Upper Division Assistant are higher or lower posts, entailing higher or lower degrees of responsibility. The Inspector of Taxes and Upper Division Assistant being equivalent posts both for purposes of grade and scale of pay the appellant was entitled from 22.11.76 to 30.6.77 to count his previous service for fixation of seniority, in terms of the Establishment Division’s Memo dated 20.3.79. But both the appellant and the respondents missed the essential point in the entire litigation, namely, that on and from 1.7.77 the amalgamation of Upper Division Assistant and Inspector of Taxes into the same grade and scale of pay was done away with, making it a thing of the past, and obliterated event, leaving no trace of any vested right that may have accrued upto 30.6.77. From 1.7.77 an Upper Division Assistant and Inspector of Taxes are not equivalent posts, either in respect of grade or in respect of scale of pay. The appellant will not be considered to have been absorbed in an equivalent post. Yes, he was absorbed in an equivalent post in 1976, but the equivalence “ceased to exist” from 1.7.77. Because of the respondents’ inability to bring into sharp focus this vital legal aspect of the matter the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal has made a foray into redundant considerations, like the distinction between the duties of an Upper Division Assistant and an Inspector of Taxes. The basic legal position is that from 1.7.77 the appellant remains absorbed in a post different in grade and scale of pay from the post of Upper Division Assistant and therefore with no assistance from the Establishment Division Memo dated 20.3.79 and the various other Government Memos brought to our notice by Mr. Abdur Rab Chowdhury can the appellant in any way be permitted to count his previous service from 29.9,70 to 2 1.11.76 for fixation of his seniority. [Para-13] Md AFB Jahan Mia Vs. National Board of Revenue & Ors. 5 BLT (AD)-121.

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

Para 2(X)—
In broad concept the service of the Republic means all services of Bangladesh. It is a generic term and person who is getting emolument because of his service in the Republic is a public officer. In that sense, the member of the judicial service and the magistrate exercising judicial functions are no doubt public officers in the generic term. But within the scheme of the Constitution of the People's Republic of Bangladesh the nature of judicial service has been contemplated as distinct and· separate from other works performed by other officers of other cadre services. The judicial service is, of course, included in the definition of service of the Republic but they have been separately treated within the scheme of the Constitution as reflected in Articles 115, 116, 116A and 152(1) of the Constitution. Secretary, Ministry of Finance Dhaka vs Md Masdar Hossain and others 52 DLR (AD) 82.

Para 2(X)—
Per Latifur Rahman J : Article 136 of part IX speaks of reorganisation of service of the Republic by creation, amalgamation or unification of services and such law may vary or revoke any condition of service of a person employed in the service of the Republic. This concept of reorganisation of service is available to all other civil posts including executive service of Republic other than members of the judicial service and magistrates exercising judicial functions as they have been treated separately under Articles 115, 116 and 116A of the Constitution. Article 136 refers to all general services of civil posts. 'Judicial service' has been separately treated in the relevant constitutional provisions and as such conditions of service are to be separately framed under Article 133 and it cannot be tagged as Bangladesh Civil Service (Judicial) under paragraph 2(x) of Act XXXII of 1975. Secretary, Ministry of Finance Dhaka vs Md Masdar Hossain 52 DLR (AD) 82.