Appellate Division Cases
(Civil)
PARTIES
Managing Director, Sugar Natore Mills Limited, Natore and others ……………Petitioners.
-Vs-
Md. Mostafizur Rahman…………………. Respondent.
JUSTICES
M.M. Ruhul Amin J
Md. Joynul Abedin J
Md. Abdul Matin J
Judgment Dated: 29th May 2008
His date of birth was 18.1.1939. When the plaintiff entered the service, he did not mention his date of birth in his application and during his service he passed the S.S.C. Examination without obtaining prior permission from the concerned authority and he gave his date of birth of his own choice in the S.S.C. Certificate and that would not be considered at this stage to decide the date of birth. The defendants considered the plaintiffs case judiciously and passed order of his retirement with effect from 24.9.1996 when he attained the age of retirement though the order was passed on 1.1.1998 ……………………….(3)
The trial court on consideration of evidence and materials on record decreed the suit by the judgment and decree dated 19.05.2005 on the finding that the defendants arbitrarily passed the order of retirement by calculating the age of retirement on imaginary basis ……………………..(4)
A.K.M. Shahidul Huq, Advocate-on-Record ……………………….For the Petitioners
A.I. Mohammad AH, Senior Advocate, instructed by Md. Abu Siddique Advocateon-
Record……………………. For the Respondent
Civil Petition For Leave To Appeal No. 1503 of 2007
(From the judgment and order dated 22.5.2007 passed by the High Court Division in Civil Revision No. 1743 of 2006.)
JUDGMENT
Md. Joynul Abedin J: This petition for leave to appeal at the instance of the defendants is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.5.2007 passed by a Single Bench of the High Court Division in Civil Revision No. 1743 of 2006 making the Rule absolute
2. The short fact is that the respondent as plaintiff instituted the aforesaid Title Suit No. 175 of 2000 against the defendantpetitioners for a declaration that the letter dated 1.1.1998 of the Deputy Chief Personnel Officer, Natore Sugar Mills, Natore is illegal, null and void and without jurisdiction with a prayer for mandatory injunction to allow him continue to work as Workshop Superintendent alleging, inter alia, that the plaintiff joined Zeal Bangla Sugar Mills (formerly Zeal Pak sugar Mill) , Jamalpur on 26.1.1965 as a Fitter and thereafter he passed the S.S.C. Examination and according to the S.S.C.
Certificate his date of birth was 31.12.1948. The plaintiff thereafter worked in different Sugar Mills of Bangladesh in different posts and while he was working in Kustia Sugar Mills, he applied to the authority for his retirement by way of golden handshake. But the
Managing Director of the Mills sent his application for consideration to the higher authority. The said application was not considered by the authority on the ground that he did not attain the required age of golden handshake. The plaintiff thereafter joined Natore Sugar Mais on 1.2.1997 on transfer as Workshop Superintendent and the Mill authority paid him a n increment vide its memo date ,2.4.1997 stating therein that his next increment would be effective from 1.1.1998. But on 1.1.1998 vide memo No.2195 the plaintiff was retired from his service with retrospective effect showing that he attained 57 years of age on 24.11.1996. The plaintiff alleged, that the defendants illegally retired him
though he did not attain 57 years on 24.11.1996. The plaintiff therefore sent a representation to reinstate him in service and by memo dated 16.9.1998 the Joint Secretary (Establishment) wrote to the defendant No.l to consider his case which
was not done. The plaintiff then made a representation to defendant Nos.2 and 3
but on 16.8.1999 the plaintiff was informed that there was no chance to consider his prayer. The plaintiff was not given any chance of being heard in the matter and the impugned order was illegal, collusive and without jurisdiction.
3. The defendant petitioners contested the suit contendinq that the plaintiff joined in the service in the then Zeal Pak Sugar Mills (now Zeal Bangla Sugar Mills) on 18.1.1965 making a representation in writing that he had 8 years previous experience and if his past experience is considered, he was 18 years old on 18.1.1957 and thus his date of birth was 18.1.1939. When the plaintiff entered the service, he did not mention his date of birth in his application and during his service he passed the S.S.C. Examination without
obtaining prior permission from the concerned authority and he gave his date of birth of his own choice in the S.S.C. Certificate and that would not be considered at this stage to decide the date of birth. The defendants considered the plaintiff’s case judiciously and passed order of his retirement with effect from 24.9.1996 when he attained the age of
retirement though the order was passed on 1.1.1998.
4. The trial court on consideration of evidence and materials on record decreed the suit by the judgment and decree dated 19.05.2005 on the finding that the defendants arbitrarily passed the order of retirement by calculating the age of retirement on imaginary basis.
5. The defendant petitioners thereupon being aggrieved preferred Title appeal No.70 of 2005 before the learned District Judge and the learned District Judge on consideration of the materials on record allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 19.3.2006 by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.
6. Being aggrieved the plaintiff moved the High Court Division in civil revision. A Single Bench of the High Court Division thereupon on consideration of the materials on record decreed the suit by reversing’ the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge in appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.
7. Hence the present petition for leave to appeal by the defendant petitioners.
8. Mr. A.K.M. Shahidul Huq, the learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioners submits that the learned Single Judge of the High Court Division erred in failing to appreciate and consider that since the minimum age for entering into the service of the defendant Mills is 18 years and since the plaintiff respondent secured his appointment on 26.1.1965 on a representation that he had 8 years working experience he was considered to have attained
28 years of age on the date of his appointment on 26.1.1965 as the plaintiff respondent did not mention any age in his application for appointment and accordingly the defendant petitioners retired the plaintiff respondent on 24.11.1996 as he attained the age of retirement i.e. 57 years on that date and as a result there has been a miscarriage of justice.
9. We have heard the learned Advocateon-Record and perused the connected papers including the impugned judgment. We do not find any substance in the points raised. The High Court Division upon correct assessment of the materials on record arrived at a correct decision. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the same.
10. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
Source : V ADC (2008),655