Appellate Division Cases
Dock Workers Management Board, Post Training Centre, Police Station-Bandar, District-Chittagong and another ……………..Petitioners
Muhammad Ismail and others …………………………Respondents
Syed J. R. Mudassir Husain CJ
Mohammad Fazlul Karim J
Amirul Kabir Chowdhury J
Order Dated: 11th December 2005
Dock Workers (Regulation of employment) Act 1980
High court Division committed error in not appreciation that the respondent Nos.l to 3 are in the service of the Republic and thus they cannot compel the Government in the matter of upgradation and that recommendation simpliciter does not entitle anybody to claim the upgradation as of right and that on right thus being accrued in favour of the writ petitioners the High Court Division committed error in making the rule absolute ……………..(7)
Civil Petition for leave to Appeal No. 742 of 2005 (From the Judgment and Order dated
01.03.2005 passed by the High Court Division in writ Petition No. 890 of 2003.)
Maqbul Ahmed, Advocate, instructed by A. K. M. Shahidul Huq, Advocate-on-Record……… For the Petitioners
Md. Rafiqul Islam Mia, Advocate, instructed by Mvi. Md. Wahidullah, Advocate-on-
Record ……………….For Respondent Nos.l-3
Not represented……………. Respondent Nos. 4-6
1. Amirul Kabir Chowdhury J :- The delay is condoned.
2. The petitioners Dock workers Management Board, Port Training Centre, Chittagong and its Chairman seek leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 01.03.2005 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 890 of 2003 making the rule absolute and directing the petitioner (writ respondent) to upgrade the post of the respondent Nos.l to 3 (writ petitioners) With fixation of grade-V of National Pay scale.
3. The aforesaid writ petitioners filed writ petition No.890 of 2003 stating, inter alia, that they are employees of Dock Workers Management Board, Chittagong working as personnel and welfare Manager, Secretary and Finance and Accounts officer respectively and performing their functions as the heads of each department and their services were regulated by Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act 1980 and that the law was later replaced by the Dock Workers (Regulation of employment) Scheme 1983 and the Government accorded approval of the pay scale of grade-VI for those posts and that in the 30th meeting of the Board it was resolved that the heads of the department of personnel and welfare department and medical department should be re-designated as chief personnel and welfare officer and chief medical officer respectively with pay scale of grade-V and a proposal was accordingly sent to the Government for approval of the proposal. But without complying with the aforesaid recommendation, only Departmental Head of the Medical Department was upgraded as Chief Medical officer with the pay scale of grade-Vfrom 10.11.1991.
4. It was further stated that as a result the writ petitioners became subordinate to the Chief
Medical officer and that the Chief Medical officer, because of his higher grade in the pay scale, is now qualified, on promotion to be appointed as Vice Chairman but the writ petitioners being not allowed the up gradation as stated above because of the lower grade in their pay scale, they would be deprived of such opportunity though they also held similar position of the Chief Medical officer and as such it being contrary to principle of equity and justice required to be interfered.
5. The rule was contested by the present petitioners who contended that a servant of the
Republic cannot claim promotion and up gradation and scale of pay as a matter of right arid as such the rule was liable to be discharged. The High Court Division after hearing the parties made the rule absolute by thr impugned judgment and order.
6. Hence is this petition.
7. Mr. Maqbul Ahmed, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits, inter-alia, that the High Court Division committed error in not appreciation that the respondent Nos.l to 3 are in the service of the Republic and thus they cannot compel the
Government in the matter of upgradation and that recommendation simpliciter does not entitle anybody to claim the upgradation as of right and that on right thus being accrued in favour of the writ petitioners the High Court Division committed error in making the rule absolute.
8. Mr. Md. Rafiqul Islam Mia, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.l to 3 opposes the petition submitting, inter alia, that the writ petitioners being deprived of their legitimate expectation the High Court Division came to a correct finding and thus made the rule absolute.
9. We have considered the submissions and perused the materials on record.
10. The submissions made on behalf of the petitioners merit consideration.
11. Leave is granted to consider the additional ground which runs as follows :”
Because the learned Judges of the High Court Division could not appreciate that giving promotion or up gradation of the post and pay scale of an employee of the Republic is the discretion of the Government as the sole authority and promotion or upgradation of the position and pay scale of a servant of the Republic cannot be claimed as a matter of right and thereby committed error of law in making the rule absolute directing the petitioners
to upgrade the posts and pay scales of the respondent Nos.l-3.”
12. Security of Tk.1000/- is to be deposited within one month.
13. Preparation of paper book is dispensed with as prayed for.
14. Operation of the impugned judgment and Order dated 01.03.2005 passed by the High
Court Division in Writ petition No.890 of 2003 be stayed till disposal of the appeal.
Source: IV ADC (2007), 173