বীমা উন্নয়ন নিয়ন্ত্রন কর্তৃপক্ষ আইন, ২০১০
Section 10
Admittedly, Insurance Development and Regulatory Authority [IDRA] established under the বীমা উন্নয়ন নিয়ন্ত্রন কর্তৃপক্ষ আইন, ২০১০ and to run the aforesaid IDRA, some employees were appointed along with writ-petitioner without waiting for the formation of organogram of service rules under the said Ain, 2010. In the present case it reveals that the writ-petitioner [respondent No.01] was appointed initially on 01.08.2011 and subsequently after considering her good performance by office order dated 04.01.2012 her monthly salary has been increased to Tk. 12000/- with effect from 01.01.2012. It further appears that she got appointed in the post of Junior Officer on temporary basis. But the appointment letter of the writ-petitioner [respondent No. 01] does not contain any fraction period or certain period for which she was appointed and as such she could not be termed as temporary appointee. .....Insurance Development Regulatory Authority =VS= Shaila Akhter, (Civil), 2023(2) [15 LM (AD) 46] ....View Full Judgment

For categorizing an employee to be temporary the temporary period for which he is appointed has to be clearly mentioned: Mere wording of ‘temporary’ used in the appointment letter cannot be the basis for categorizing the employee as temporary appointee in the absence of any fraction period or certain period mentioned in the appointment letter itself. ...IDRA Vs. Ms. Shaila Akhter & ors, (Civil), 18 SCOB [2023] AD 62 ....View Full Judgment

If the appointment letter does not contain any fraction period or certain period for which someone is appointed she could not be termed as temporary appointee: Admittedly, Insurance Development and Regulatory Authority [IDRA] established under the বীমা উন্নয়ন ও নিয়ন্ত্রন কর্তৃপক্ষ আইন, ২০১০ and to run the aforesaid IDRA, some employees were appointed along with writ-petitioner without waiting for the formation of organogram of service rules under the said Ain, 2010. In the present case it reveals that the writ-petitioner [respondent No.01] was appointed initially on 01.08.2011 and subsequently after considering her good performance by office order dated 04.01.2012 her monthly salary has been increased to Tk. 12000/- with effect from 01.01.2012. It further appears that she got appointed in the post of Junior Officer on temporary basis. But the appointment letter of the writ-petitioner [respondent No. 01] does not contain any fraction period or certain period for which she was appointed and as such she could not be termed as temporary appointee. ...IDRA Vs. Ms. Shaila Akhter & ors, (Civil), 18 SCOB [2023] AD 62 ....View Full Judgment

বীমা উন্নয়ন নিয়ন্ত্রন কর্তৃপক্ষ আইন, ২০১০
Section 14
Order of removal is nothing but remains a disputed question of arbitrariness on the part of the authority which is not sustainable in law–– It appears from the order of removal that the authority passed an order putting a stigma simply stating as to dissatisfaction and ‘inefficiency of her service’ which is not sustainable in view of the facts and circumstances stated above. It is well settled that before putting such stigma principle of natural justice demands an opportunity of being heard to be given of the writ-petitioner. In order to satisfy the authority about the performance in the service, although writ-petitioner made reply stating all facts but the authority could not show any material as to substantiating the allegation of dissatisfaction with the service of the writpetitioner. And as such mere mentioning of dissatisfaction or inefficiency in the impugned order of removal is nothing but remains a disputed question of arbitrariness on the part of the authority which is not sustainable in law. ––It is Appellate Division’s considered view that the finding and decision arrived at by the High Court Division in making the Rule Nisi absolute in part, being based on proper appreciation of facts and law, and the same does not suffer from any legal infirmity to interfere with by this Division. .....Insurance Development Regulatory Authority =VS= Shaila Akhter, (Civil), 2023(2) [15 LM (AD) 46] ....View Full Judgment

Principle of natural justice– It is well settled that before putting such stigma principle of natural justice demands an opportunity of being heard to be given of the writ-petitioner. In order to satisfy the authority about the performance in the service, although writ-petitioner made reply stating all facts but the authority could not show any material as to substantiating the allegation of dissatisfaction with the service of the writ-petitioner. And as such mere mentioning of dissatisfaction or inefficiency in the impugned order of removal is nothing but remains a disputed question of arbitrariness on the part of the authority which is not sustainable in law. ...IDRA Vs. Ms. Shaila Akhter & ors, (Civil), 18 SCOB [2023] AD 62 ....View Full Judgment