TK. 1.39,272.24/. only, as payable to him for the period from 03.07.1999 to 01.08.2004 along with interest at the bank rate up to the date of payment.
- 2. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner had been serving in the Birol Degree- College (in short, the College) as an Assistant Professor of the Department of physics for long about 32 years with sincerely and efficiency since 24.07.21975. While in service in the College the petitioner was temporarily suspended by (he Governing Body of the College’ on 01.07.1999 at the instance of some local vested quarter out of sheer conspiracy. Ultimately, he was dismissed from service on 08.11.1999 under rule 17(Ga) of the Non-Government Institution Administration and Management Rules. The petitioner was, therefore, constrained to institute Other Class Suit no.8O of 1999 before the court of Subordinate Judge, (now, the Joint District Judge), Dinajpur who subsequently passed an order of temporary injunction restraining Governing Body of the College from giving effeet to the order of dismissal and to allow him to serve till disposal of the suit. .Subsequently, the Governing Body of the College by adopting a resolution dated 17.07.2004 had withdrawn the order of suspension dated 01.07.1999 against the petitioner. Consequ-ently, he also withdrawn the said suit by way of mutual settlement. pursuant to the decision so adopted by the Governing Body of the College in its meeting, dated 17.07.2004 and also in consideration of the withdrawal of Other (class Suit No. 80 of 1999 by the petitioner on 27.07.2004, the College authority by its letter hearing Memo no. 72(1)/04 dated 31.07.2004 re-instated the petitioner in service asking him to join within 7 (seven) days from the date of receipt of the said order. The Petitioner accordingly joined in his respective post as Assistant Professor, (Physics) in the College on 01.O8.2004 which was duly accepted by the respondent no.7 on the same day.
- 3. It has been contended that the petitioner as an Assistant Professor of the Department of Physics of the College was entitled to get half of the balance amount of the government portion of salary and accordingly an amount of Tk.l ,89,272.24 only was payable to him on his re-instatement in .service, It has been asserted that though the said amount was withdrawn by respondent no.7 through bill but instead of paying to him the said amount was kept in the College account bearing A/C No.544 at Rupali Bank, Birol Branch, and that the respondent no.7 did not yet pay his arrear dues despite repeated requests so made to that effect. The anomaly was duly detected during, the course of audit by respondent no.4. Pursuant thereto the respondent no.3 vide Memo no. Sha;(Paridarshan) -5/07/32 dated 2 5.02.2007 recommended for taking legal action against the respondent No. 7 including the college authority for withdra-wing the amount of Tk. 1 ,89,272.24 which was payable to the petitioner out of the government portion of salary. The relevant portion is quoted below:-
“Rbve †gvt kvnRvnvb wgTv, mn Ava¨vcK (c`v_©) Gi wei“‡× Akvjxb I Aïf AvPi‡bi Rb¨ K‡qK Rb QvÎx Awffe‡Ki Awf‡hv‡Mi †cÖw¶‡Z 3/7/99 Zvwi‡L mvgwqK eiLv¯— Kiv nq | Rbve †gvt kvnRvnvb wgTv GZ`wel‡q 80/99 bs gvgjv `v‡qi Kwiqv‡Qb| gvgjv cÖZ¨nvi Ges Df‡qi AvjPbvi †cÖw¶‡Z mvgwqK eiLv‡¯—i Av‡`k cÖZ¨vnvi Kiv nq Ges wZwb 1/8/04 Zvwi‡L cbyivq Kv‡R †hvM`vb K‡ib | mvgwqK eiLv¯— Kvjxb 3/7/99 nB‡Z 31.07.2004 ch©š— wewa †gvZv‡eK wZwb miKvix †eZ‡bi A‡a©K cÖvc¨ wQ‡jb| wKš— Zvnvi c~Y© †eZb wej Kwiqv mgy`q (1,89,272/24) UvKv D‡Ëvjb Kiv nq| D³ mg‡q Zvnvi c~Y© †eZb D‡Ëvj‡bi Rb¨ cÖwZôvb cÖavb `vqx| GB wel‡q AvBbvbyM e¨e¯’v MÖn‡Yi Rb¨ h_vh_ KZ©…c‡¶i `„wó AvKl©Y Kiv nBj| “
- 4. The petitioner, thereafter, sent a legal notice dated 26.09.2007 (Annexure-F)to the respondent nos. 6 and 7 requesting them to pay his arrear dues of Tk. 1,89,272.24 only along with interest at the bank-rate up to the date of payment thereof within 15(fifteen) days from the date of receipt of the notice. On the receipt thereof the respondent nos. 6 and 7 convened a meeting of the Governing Body of the college to be held on 05.12.2006 by issuance of notice dated 06.11.2006. Accordingly, in the meeting it was resolved that legal opinion would be sought for from the Government Pleader as to whether the period of suspension of the petitioner could, at all, be adjudged as working days or not. The Government Pleader vide memo no. (G.P./Din(2) 1/2007 dated 29.01.2007 gave his legal opinion to the effect that the Governing Body of [he College having had withdrawn the suspension and dismissal order and had reinstated the petitioner in his post as Assistant Professor (Physics), the period of suspension of the petitioner would be deemed to he his working days and he was, therefore, entitled under the rules to get his due salary and allowances and that it might he paid to him. The relevant portion is quoted below:-
“Rbve †gvt kvnRvnvb wgTv eiLv‡¯—i Av‡`k K‡j‡Ri Mfwb©s ewW cÖZ¨vnvi K‡i wb‡q Zvu‡K K‡j‡R Zvui wbR c‡` cybt‡hvM`v‡bi I cybe©nv‡ji AbygwZ †`Iqvq Zvui `iLv¯— Ae¯—vq _vKvKvjxb mgq Kg©Kvj wnmv‡e MY¨ n‡e Ges Dnv cÖ`vb Kiv †h‡Z cv‡I”
- 5. But till date no action has been taken nor any money has been paid to the petitioner Hence, the application.
- 6. Mr. Fariduddin Ahmed, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that despite legal notice (Annexure-F) sent by the petitioner upon the respondent nos. 6 and 7 to pay his entire arrear dues of TK. 1,89,272.24 only with interest and the legal opinion of the Government Pleader (Annexure-H-l), given to that effect, the respondents have not yet paid the same. He further submits that respondent nos. 6 and 7 have been trying to frustrate the process of payment of his said dues for the period from 03.07. 1997 to 01.08.2004 along with interest at the bank rate upto the date of payment thereof and thereby sought to render the order dated 25.022007 (Annexure-E)nugatory with malafide intention.
- 7. Conversely, Mr. A.H.M Mushfiqnr Rahman, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 7 by filing affidvit-in-opposition submits that the said respondent on receipt of the memo dated 22.10.2007 issued by the Assistant Secretary, Ministry of education had duly complied with the direction by depositing the said amount of money in favour ot the government in local treasury (Sonali Bank Ltd.) dated O8. 11. 2007 (Annexure-4(a) and that it was duly communicated to the respondent no.2 vide memo dated 09.01.200S (Annexure-5) stating inter aliia,-
“cÖwZôvb cÖav‡bi Reve ch©v‡jvPbvq †`Lv hvq mvgwqK eiLv¯— Kvjxb mnt Aa¨vcK (c`v_©) Rbve †gvt kvnRvnvb wgTv, Ava¨vcK wei“‡× Akvjxb I Aïf AvPi‡bi Rb¨ K‡qK Rb QvÎx Awffe‡Ki Awf‡hv‡Mi †cÖw¶‡Z 3/7/99 Zvwi‡L mvgwqK eiLv¯— Kiv nq | D³ eiLv¯— Av‡`‡ki wei“‡× wZwb gvgjv K‡ib| eiLv¯— Kvjxb mg‡q c~Y© †eZb D‡Ëvjb Kiv n‡jI Zvu‡K 50% UvKv cÖ`vb Kiv nq cieZ©x‡Z Rbve †gvt kvnRvnvb wgqv gvgjv cÖZ¨vnvi Kivq Ges K‡jR KZ©…c‡¶i wm×vš— Abyhvqx mKj Kvh©µg dqmvjv nIqvq wZwb Aewkó 1,89,272/24 UvKv 8/10/07 Zvwi‡L miKvix †KvlvMv‡i Pvjv‡bi gva¨‡g Rgv cÖ`vb K‡i‡Qb weavq AvcwË †_‡K Ae¨vnwZ †`qv nj|”
- 8. Admittedly, bringingsome allegations the petitioner was suspended temporality from his respective post on 11.07.1999 Challenging which he instituted Other Class Suit no. 80 of 1999. Subsequently, the Governing Body took decision to withdraw the. suspension order. Consequently, the suspension order was withdrawn and accordingly the petitioner also withdrawn the said suit and joined in the respective post. During the suspension period the petitioner received 50% of his subsistence allowance. The balance 50% amounting to Tk. 1,89,272.24 was kept in the account of the college authority without any legal basis. The said act of’ the College authority was detected during the course of audit dated 26.12.2006 ( Annexure-E), wherein it was opined-
“Rbve †gvt kvnRvnvb wgTv, mnt Ava¨vcK (c`v_©) Gi wei“‡× Akvjxb I Aïf AvPi‡bi Rb¨ K‡qK Rb QvÎx Awffe‡Ki Awf‡hv‡Mi †cÖw¶‡Z 3/7/99 Zvwi‡L mvgwqK eiLv¯— Kiv nq | Rbve †gvt kvnRvnvb wgTv GZ`wel‡q 80/99 bs gvgjv `v‡qi Kwiqv‡Qb| gvgjv cÖZ¨nvi Ges Df‡qi AvjPbvi †cÖw¶‡Z mvgwqK eiLv‡¯—i Av‡`k cÖZ¨vnvi Kiv nq Ges wZwb 1/8/04 Zvwi‡L cbyivq Kv‡R †hvM`vb K‡ib | mvgwqK eiLv¯— Kvjxb 3/7/99 nB‡Z 31.07.2004 ch©š— wewa †gvZv‡eK wZwb miKvix †eZ‡bi A‡a©K cÖvc¨ wQ‡jb| wKš— Zvnvi c~Y© †eZb wej Kwiqv mgy`q (1,89,272/24) UvKv D‡Ëvjb Kiv nq| D³ mg‡q Zvnvi c~Y© †eZb D‡Ëvj‡bi Rb¨ cÖwZôvb cÖavb `vqx| GB wel‡q AvBbvbyM e¨e¯’v MÖn‡Yi Rb¨ h_vh_ KZ©…c‡¶i `„wó AvKl©Y Kiv nBj|
- 9. In view of the said position the College authority sought of the Government pleader. The Goverment Pleader in his legal opinion also opined to return the balance 50% of the MPO of the petitioner since the suspension order had been withdrawn by the college authority and the authority itself kept the said amount in its account, though not lawfully. However, the said amount was subsequently deposited in fovour of the respondent-government by treasury challan with Sonah IJank Ltd. dated O8.11.2007(Annexure-4-A).
- 10. In view of the above the petitioner is entitled to receive the balance amount which was unduly kepi in the College account and are now lying in the Government Treasury. Accordingly subs-tance in the present Rule.
- 11. In the result, the Rule is made Absolute. The respondents are hereby directed to lake, necessary steps to facilitate towards payment of TK. 1,89,272.24 only in favour of the petitioner which he is lawfully entitled to get in accordance with law within a period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment and order.
There will be no order us to costs