This court in Yousuf Haroon (supra) has rightly held that this regulation 11A(2) was added on 05.02.1984 after the decision in Dr. Nurul Islam (supra). It further held that since there is principle or guidelines for retiring an employee after 25 years of service, it cannot be said that regulation 11A(2) does not give any guideline or that there is scope for arbitrary exercise of power by the Corporation. It further held that an employee of Biman can be given compulsory retirement by the Corporation in exercise of powers under rule 5 of Bangladesh Biman Corporation Employees (Pension and Gratuity) Rules, 1988 as well as regulation 11A(2). The authority before making the order of compulsory retirement was satisfied that for the interest of Corporation he was given compulsory retirement and that there was nothing on record to show that the order of compulsory retirement was made arbitrarily or malafide. Under the unamended provision, there was scope for arbitrary exercise of discretion from among persons similarly situated and holding similar job, but under the present provision there is no scope to exercise arbitrary power. We fully endorse to the views taken in Yousuf Haroon (supra). .....Bangladesh Biman Airlines Ltd. =VS= Captain Mir Mazharul Huq, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 66] ....View Full Judgment

‘Whether Promotion to Pay Group V from Group IV to be made on the basis of seniority and on the basis of combined Seniority List alone and that petitioners (in writ Petition) have vested right for promotion.
Regulation 1 2 (1) of the Regulations does in no way show that promotion of the personnel of the Corporation to the higher posts is a vested right. The respondent Nos. I and 2 in Appeal No. 25 of 2000 who are the personnel of Bench Fitting shop of GSE Department to no point of time earned any right of being promoted to Pay Group V on the basis of non-exist combined seniority list nor they had any vested right at any time before making of organization order 13 of 1995 and circulation of sepal-ate seniority list by the memo dated 30.12.1995 of being promoted to the post of Junior Officers Maintenance in pay Group V and as such they have not been deprived of any guaranteed of right or that discriminated.
Bangladesh Biman Corp. & Ors. Vs. Md. Tipu Sultan & Ors. 11BLT (AD)-64

Determination of seniority of the recruits under one advertisement and under same recruitment examinations but undergoing training in batches one after another due to logistic constraints—
Where the employees are recruited in pursuance of one advertisement under the same written and viva voce. examinations and where the results of the training of such recruits are counted towards determining their inter-se-seniority, the infer se-seniority of such employees should be determined on the basis of the merit taken together of the written examination, viva voce test and the result of the training regardless of whether such recruits are given training at a time or in batches at different time due to logistic problem.
Aminul Hoque and others Vs. Rejiqul Hassan and others. 2, MLR(1997) (AD) 71.

Seniority of Employees
The recruitment of the respondents and those included in the impugned seniority list being one, the fact of their being included in the first batch for training and thereby getting an appointment a few days before the next batch of trainees, which is merely of fortuitous and accidental, is quite immaterial for determining seniority, the entire period of training of the different batches is to be treated as one training for the purpose of counting seniority as the process of recruitment was one and the same.
The Managing Director, Bangladesh Biman Corporation and ors. Vs Md. Reza Kamal And others, 17 BLD (AD) 41.

The Appellate Division held that Bangladesh Biman Airlines Limited reinstated terminated employees in their services pursuant to the directions given by the High Court except the respondent in a discretionary manner, The Appellate Division reinstated him and also reiterating the statement of law for termination as follows:-
(a)Termination is a recognized method of dispensing with the services of an employee/worker by an employer after fulfilling certain conditions, such as, by providing termination benefits,
(b) termination simpliciter without giving any stigma or making any accusation is not a punishment and in passing such order no reason is required to be assigned,
(c) An employer is always free to take recourse to a simple order of termination in order to avoid the complex disciplinary action or in other words it is open to the employer not to have recourse to any an employee by notice in accordance with the conditions of his employment without show case, that is, the principle of natural justice has got no manner of application in case of termination simpliciter,
(d) An order of termination simpliciter is a valid order and cannot be interfered with in judicial review provided that the intended action is not taken with a view to victimize the employer/worker for trade union activities.
Biman Bangladesh -Vs.- Md. Moniruzzaman 3 ALR(2014)(1)(AD) 188

If the intimation or request of resignation is silent as to the date or period of resignation being effective, the Biman authority could consider such resignation as of immediate effect upon surrender of pay in lieu of notice period under the provisions of regulation 53(3). The submission of a letter seeking permission to withdraw letter of resignation does not render the resignation with immediate effect as non-existent or ineffective. The matter of communication of the acceptance of resignation is a mere formality and routine work, and a lapse of time in between the resignation and acceptance does not keep the resignation in hibernation, which is intended to be immediately effective.
If a resignation is with immediate effect under regulation 53(3), arguments that the employee could recall or rescind the resignation prior to acceptance and communication of acceptance of the resignation, including arguments based on section 21 of the General Clauses Act 1897, or the principles of estoppel, are not applicable.
Bangladesh Biman Corporation and others v. Md. Jasimuddin, 22 BLD (AD) 23.
Ref: M. A. Mannan v. Biman Bangladesh Airlines 1989 BLD 516. AIR 1978 (SC) 694 Belal Rahman v. P.J. Industries Ltd. 39 DLR239; Bangladesh Parjatan Corporation v. Mofizur Rahman, 46 DLR (AD) 46—Cited.

Respondent was employee of the Biman in Pay Group 3 (ii) Respondent’s Case was that before acceptance and communication of the letter f resignation he having had filed letter seeking permission to withdraw his letter of resignation and that he having been allowed to sign attendance registrar, his resignation terminated and thereupon he was very much in the service and as such the authority did acted illegally in accepting his letter of resignation which was in which was not in existence.
Held : We are of the view that by filing a letter seeking permission to withdraw letter of resignation, the resignation with immediate effect does not become nonexistent nor becomes ineffective. The matter of communication of the acceptance of resignation was a mere formality and routine work and as such the time that passed in between 29 August, 1998 and 6 September. 1998 did in no way kept n hibernation Respondent’s which be himself intend to be an immediate one.
Bangladesh Biman Corporation & Ors. Vs. Md. Jasimuddin 11BLT (AD)-30