Janabal Kathamo Nitimala, 2010 [as amended in 2013]
Section 18(6)
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 102
MPO–– Having gone through the provision of section 18(6) of the Jonabal Kathamo, 2010 [as amended in 2013] it appears that there is a restriction imposed by law to withdraw the salary, i.e. the Monthly Payment Order if there are disputes in the internal management of the institution. It has been enshrined in section 18(6) of the Jonabal Kathamo, 2010 that “(৬) প্রতিষ্ঠানের শিক্ষক/কর্মচারী ব্যবস্থাপনা কমিটির মধ্যকার অভ্যন্তরীণ বিরোধের কারনে বা তাদের মধ্যে সৃষ্ঠ মামলার বা অন্য কোন কারনে বেতন-ভাতাদির সরকারী অংশ উত্তোলন সম্ভব করা যাবে না। সংশ্লিষ্ট প্রতিষ্ঠান এর আর্থিক দায়-দায়িত্ব বহন করবে। ” .....Government of Bangladesh =VS= Aruna Rani Sarker, (Civil), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 368] ....View Full Judgment

Janabal Kathamo Nitimala, 2010 [as amended in 2013]
Section 18(6)
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 102
MPO–– Granting MPO is the policy decision of the government–– The writ-petition is not maintainable–– The provision of section 18(6) of the Jonabal Kathamo, 2010 [as amended in 2013] it appears that there is a restriction imposed by law to withdraw the salary i.e the `Monthly Pay Order' if there are disputes in the internal Management of the Institution. In the instant case we have already found that a departmental proceeding was initiated against the writ-petitioner for practicing fraud to delete the name of one Assistant Moulavi Belal Hossain from the MPO sheet. So there is no illegality in stopping the MPO of the writ-petitioner. It further appears that the writ-petitioner did not mention in the writ petition regarding departmental proceeding pending against him and if the writ-petitioner disclosed the fact of departmental proceeding pending against him, then, the result of the Rule might have been otherwise by the High Court Division. However, it is disputed question of fact. Against which writ-petition in the form of mandamus is not maintainable. The writ-petitioner also does not come with clean hand before the Court. .....Government of Bangladesh =VS= Md. Abdul Hoque, (Civil), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 392] ....View Full Judgment

Cancelling the enlistment of the writ-petitioners’ institution in the monthly payment order (MPO).
The Appellate Division observed that admittedly, both the educational institutions in question were included in the MPO list after observance of all formalities and compliance of requirements. But subsequently the names of these educational institutions were excluded from that list without assigning any reason whatsoever. Before the court also the contesting respondents could not assign any reason for excluding these educational institutions from the list of MPO. In the circumstances Appellate Division finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court Division.
Government of Bangladesh and other -Vs.- Qamrun Nahar and others. Md. Amzad Hossain and others. (Civil) 11 ALR (AD) 94-96