Sections 2, 3 and 5
|
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
|
Sohrab Ali Miah =VS= Bangladesh Sugar & Food Industries Corporation |
7 LM (AD) 56 |
Sections 3 & 5
|
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.
|
Azizul Huq Sikder and others vs Collector of Customs, Chittagong |
49 DLR (AD) 172 |
Section 4
|
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.
|
AHM Mustain Billah and 4 others vs Bangladesh and 60 others |
6 BLC (AD) 7 |
Section 4
|
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.
|
Syeedur Rahman Khan (Md) vs Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare |
6 BLC (AD) 53 |
Section 5
|
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.
|
Azizul Huque Sikder and others vs Collector of Customs, Chittagong and others |
49 DLR (AD) 172 |
Section 5
|
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.
|
Bangladesh Government represented by Secretary Ministry of Industries Vs. Md. Shahjahan and others. |
2 MLR (AD) 351 |
Section 5
|
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.
|
Md AFB Jahan Mia Vs. National Board of Revenue & Ors. |
5 BLT (AD) 121 |
Extra Mohorars—
|
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 |
Para 2(X)
|
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.
|
Secretary, Ministry of Finance Dhaka vs Md Masdar Hossain and others |
52 DLR (AD) 82 |
Para 2(X)
|
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.
|
Secretary, Ministry of Finance Dhaka vs Md Masdar Hossain |
52 DLR (AD) 82 |