The New Nation - Internet Edition

APPELLATE DIVISION (Civil)

Syed JR Mudassir

Husain CJ

MM Ruhul Amin J

Amirul Kabir

Chowdhury J

Judgment May 24th, 2006

Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Public Works and others …….Petitioners

vs

Md Aftabuddin Fakir. tttt Respondent*

Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972 Articles 102, 103

Administrative Tribunal Act (VII of 1981) Section 4

It appears that the Administrative Appellate Tribunal considered a number of government circulars issued by the Ministry of Establishment and the office orders issued by the PWD in this connection and arrived at the decision. There is no cogent reason to interfere with the same t. (7)

Fida M Kamal. Additional Attorney-General, instructed by Md Ahsan Ullah Patwary, Advocate-on-Record-For the Petitioners.

Md Nawab Ali. Advocate-on-Record-For the Respondent.

Judgment

MM Ruhul Amin J: This petition for leave to appeal' is directed against the judgment and order dated 13-7-2005 passed by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka in Appeal No. 52 of 2001 allowing the same.

2. Short facts are that the petitioner, Md Aftabuddin Fakir, a retired UD Assistant of the PWD instituted AT Case No. 262 of 1997 before the Administrative Tribunal-I, Dhaka for a declaration that he was entitled to get pension and gratuity benefits from 17-10-1968 to 30-6-1978 as regular Government employee in continuation to his subsequent services till 30-12-1996. He was 'appointed temporarily as Work Assistant by PWD's Superintending Engineer's order dated 17:10-1968 and was posted in the Office of the Superintending Engineer against Sub-Division No.1 of Development (Bldg) Division No.1, Dhaka. Though he was appointed temporarily as a work-charged employee, the petitioner enjoyed all facilities of a regular employee of the Department like other regular employees. While he was rendering his services as work charged employee, the Government issued a memo dated 28-3-1969 for conversion of certain temporary posts into permanent posts and contingent and work-charged staff into regular establishment: Accordingly, the petitioner was absorbed in regular establishment and appointed as LD Assistant. He was promoted to the post of LD Assistant-by office order dated 27-7-1995 and lastly retired from service on 30-12-1996. The petitioner had rendered 28 years 1 month and 9 days of services with effect from the date of his appointment as temporary Work Assistant but the respondents most illegally and arbitrarily excluded his work-charged period of services from 11-10-1968 to 30-6-1978 for the purpose of not giving him pension benefit to the said period.

3. The respondent contested the case by filing a written statement contending, inter alia, that the petitioner was serving as a work-charged employee for about 9 years and 9 months on temporary basis and thereafter he was appointed afresh as LD Assistant on 30-6-1978 against the regular substantive post of the Department and accordingly, he was refused pension benefits for the period he served temporarily as work-charged employee.

4. The Administrative Tribunal No.1, Dhaka dismissed the case. On appeal being Appeal No. 52 of 2001: the Administrative Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal as noticed earlier.

5. We have heard Mr Fida M Kamal, the learned Additional Attorney-General for the petitioner and Mr Md Nawab Ali, the learned Advocate-on-Record for the respondent and perused the judgment of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal and other connected papers.

6. There is no dispute that the petitioners rendered 9 years. 9 months, continuous service as work-charged basis and, thereafter he was absorbed against 'regular substantive post in the Department without any break of service. It is also undisputed that one Md. Harun-ur-Rashid, UD Assistant of the same department who rendered 6 years 2 months and 27 days of service on work charged basis, on his retirement was given' full pension benefits covering the period of his services as an work-charged employee but in the case, of the petitioner the same benefit was denied. Thus there has been palpable discrimination in respect of the petitioner.

The Administrative, Appellate Tribunal further found that in case of one Shafiuddin Ahmed UD Assistant-cum-Typist of the same Department the authority concerned granted him full pension and gratuity benefits covering the period of his services on work-charged basis but in case of the petitioner a different view was taken and his pension and gratuity, etc, for the period of his service on work charged: basis was denied most arbitrarily and without any lawful basis.

Accordingly, Administrative Appellate Tribunal held' that the petitioner was entitled to get pension and gratuity benefits covering the period of 9 years and 9 months on work charged basis it appears that the Administrative Appellate Tribunal considered a number of government circulars issued by the Ministry of Establishment and the office orders issued by the PWD in this connection arid arrived at the decision. There is no cogent reason to interfere with the same.

The leave petition is dismissed upon condonation of delay.