Government of Bangladesh represented by the Principal Secretary to Prime Minister’s Office, Tejgaon, Dhaka & another. (Petitioner)
Md. Sultan Ahmed (Respondent)
Syed JR Mudassir Husain CJ
Md. Ruhul Amin J
MM Ruhul Amin J
Md. Tafazzul Islam J
Judgment :August 17, 2006.
Case Referred to-
AFB Jahan Mia (Md) Vs. Chairman, National Board of Revenue and others, 49 DLR (AD) 122.
M. A. Azim Khair, Deputy Attorney General instructed by M.Zahirul Islam, Advocate-on-Record- For the Petitioners
Farooq Ahmed, Advocate, instructed by Nurul Islam Bhuiyan, Advocate-on-Record- For the Respondent
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1075 of 2005.
(From the judgment and order dated 28.06.2005 passed by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal in Miscellaneous Appeal No.04 of 2003.)
MM Ruhul Amin J. – This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.06.2005 passed by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 04 of 2003 dismissing the appeal.
2. Short facts are that Execution Case No.3 of 2002 was filed by the respondent before the Administrative Tribunal No.1, Dhaka for execution of the judgment and order dated 06.01.1993 passed by the Administrative Tribunal, Dhaka in A.T. Case No. 129 of 1991. The A.T. Case was filed under section 4 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980 challenging the orders dated 25.02.1988 and 05.04.1988 passed by the Ministry of Establishment and Directorate of National Security Intelligence respectively and for declaration that the present respondent has been in the service of the N.S.I, as an officer absorbed therein with the entitlement of seniority on the basis of past service and all attending benefits.
3. The Administrative Tribunal, Dhaka after hearing the parties allowed A.T. Case No. 129 of 1991 on contest. Against the judgment and order of the Administrative Tribunal, Appeal No. 21 of 993 was filed before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka but the appeal was dismissed on contest on 28.04.1993, against that a Civil Appeal was preferred before the Appellate Division being Civil Appeal No. 37 of 1995 but the. Civil Appeal was also dismissed on 14.12.1995. Thereafter, execution case was filed for implementation of the judgment and order passed in A.T. Case No, 129 of 1991 an the Tribunal allowed the execution case on contest directing the authorities to count past service of the present respondent in the matter of inter-se-seniority and other benefits.
4. Being aggrieved, the Government filed Miscellaneous Appeal No.04 of 2005 before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal which was also dismissed by the impugned judgment and order.
5. We have heard Mr. M. A. Azim Khair, the learned Deputy Attorney General for the petitioners and Mr. Farooq Ahmed, the learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the judgment of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal and other connected papers.
6. It is not disputed that the respondent was first appointed on 31.12.1976 as the District Population Officer under the Population Education Program of the Ministry of Education and he served in that capacity up to 30.09.1985. As a result of administrative reorganization, the Respondent was declared surplus and sent to the Ministry of Establishment for absorption as surplus officer. Thereafter, he was absorbed as Assistant Director under the N.S.I, with effect from 02.01.1986. It. is also not disputed that his past services as District Population Officer under the Population Education Program of the Ministry of Education was not counted for the purpose, of his seniority and other benefits. Being aggrieved he moved the Administrative Tribunal and the Administrative Tribunal, Dhaka directed the authority to give him seniority counting his past services and the order of Administrative Tribunal was upheld up to the Appellate Division in Civil Appeal No. 37 of 1995. It is also undisputed that there is no discontinuation of the respondent’s service under the Government. He was absorbed as a surplus officer as Assistant Director in the N.S.I. It is also not disputed that under the N.S.I, the respondent was absorbed in an equivalent post and not in a higher post. So, in our view, there is no cogent reason to deprive the respondent from the benefit of his past service under the government.
7. In the case of AFB Jahan Mia (Md) Vs. Chairman, National Board of Revenue and others reported in 49 DLR (AD) 122, this court held that the past service can only be counted on absorption in equivalent post towards seniority. When the person was absorbed in a higher post, he was not entitled to count his past service.
Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, we do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.
The leave petition is dismissed.
Source : 11 MLR (AD) 2006, 378