Bangladesh Steel and Engineering Corporation Employees Service Regulations, 1989

 

 

Bangladesh Steel and Engineering Corporation Employees Service Regulations, 1989

 

Regulations 42(8)-

Any procedural law is retrospective in its operation-a subsequent omission by way of amendment of a procedure cannot be of any consequence in respect of the proceeding against the appellant.

Chowdhury Nasimul Baqui vs Bangladesh Steel and Engineering Corporation and others 52 DLR (AD) 125.

Bangladesh Steel and Engineering Corporation Employees Service Regulations, 1989

Bangladesh Steel and Engineering Corporation Employees Service Regulations,
1989

 

Regulation-42, Clause-8 read with General
Clauses Act, 1897 Section-6

Clause
(8) of regulation 42 is a matter of simple procedure. The forum and also time
for institution of proceeding or concluding the same are only questions of
procedural law for they relate merely to the modes in which the court or the
tribunal fulfils their function. It does not invest an incumbent with any
vested right. It is well settled that any procedural law is retrospective in
its operation. Therefore, a subsequent omission by way of amendment in a
procedure cannot be of any consequence in respect of the proceeding against the
appellant. Secondly, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act contemplates repeal
of an Act and not of a regulation under the rule making power. Admittedly, in
the instant case, whatever alteration was made it was made in respect of a
regulation.

Chowdhury Nasimul
Baqui Vs. Bangladesh Steel & Eng. Cor. & Ors. 9 BLT (AD)-39.

BSR Part-1 Note-4 of Rule-72

It
appears from the judgment of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal that the
respondent was honorably acquitted by the review forum after finding that the
charges were baseless and groundless and recommended for his reinstatement ,in
the Service. The review forum further observed that the respondent -has been
honorably acquitted from the charges and as such he is entitled to pay and
allowances for the period of absence from his service as per Note-4 of Rule-72
of BSR Part- I. A reference to Note- 4 of Rule-72 shows that ‘the period of
absence of Government servant on reinstatement in ‘service after wrongful
retirement shall be treated as a period spent on duty and he will be entitled
to pay and allowances admissible under clause (a) of this rule” Clause (a) of
Rule 72 speaks that in case of honorably acquittal the incumbent is entitled to
full pay to which he would have been entitled if he had not been dismissed or
removed or suspended. In that view of the matter the Administrative Appellate
Tribunal rightly held that the respondent is entitled to the arrear pay and
allowances.

Govt. of Bangladesh
vs. A. M. Nurunnabi 9BLT (AD)-224.