Voluntary Retirement Scheme
The scheme of retirement of the petitioners were under some special circumstances and that was outside the ambit of the Public Servants (Retirement) Act, 1974. It was in fact a special arrangement made for those who voluntarily want to retire on getting certain monetary and other financial benefits—the special arrangement being not a law cannot be said to be illegal and unconstitutional.
Md. Nurul Haque Vs. Ministry of Communications & Ors. 6BLT (AD)-212
The petitioner joined the then Pakistan Army in 1969 and was Commissioned as 2nd Lieutenant on 29.3.1970 and he was later on promoted as Captain in 1974 and thereafter in 1979 he was deputed to the Bangladesh Secretariat Transport Pool and was
appointed as Director of Central Transport Pool. By memo dated 3.8.1980 the service of the petitioner was placed under Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral Resources and he was appointed on deputation as Manager of respondent no.2. He was subsequently appointed as officer on special duty in the Petrobangla by memo dated 13.6.1985. The corporation also later on appointed him as Senior Manager in Charge of Services Division and later on by memo dated 10.11 .1986 of the Chief Martial Law Administrators Secretariat, the petitioner was retired from Army service with direction to appoint him in civil as a permanent incumbent. Thereafter on 06.06.1987 the petitioner was permanently absorbed in the corporation and the respondent no.2 which is a subsidiary company of respondent no.1 -the petitioner being permanently absorbed in the office of
Bangladesh Oil, Gas and Mineral Resources Corporation as employee is a public servant within the meaning of section 2(d) of the Public Servants (Retirement) Act, 1974 (Act 12 of 1974) and he is an officer of the corporation i.e. respondent no.1 and not of respondent no.2.
B. Akram Ahmed Vs. Bangladesh Oil, Gas and Minaral Resources Cor. and Anr 14 BLT (AD)29
Section-2(d)(VI) and Read with Section-35 of The Intermediate and Secondary Education Ordinance, 1961
The appellants tenure of office is admittedly governed by Section 35 of East Pakistan Ordinance No. XXIII of 1961. In that view of the matter, appellant cannot be asked to retire on completion of 57 years of age, as Act No. XII of 1974 is not applicable to a person who holds any office the tenure of which is determined by or under any law.
Dewan Abdul Khaleque Vs. Ministry of Education & Ors. 6BLT (AD)-81
Section 9 (1) Provison
The respondent had not completed 25 years of service at the relevant time and as such his option for retirement was not exercised as per law, That being so, the proviso to section 9(1) of the Act that the option once exercised shall be final and shall not be permitted to be modified or withdrawn cannot be said to be applicable to the respondent.
Bangladesh Parjatan Corporation & Ors Vs. Md. Mafizur Rahman & Ors. 2BLT (AD)-49
The appellant was appointed as an Assistant Communication Engineer in the Civil Aviation Department and it is his case that by dint of merit he was gradually promoted to the post of Director, Civil Aviation Authority. In 1985 the Government formed Civil Aviation Authority of Bangladesh by abolishing the Department of Civil Aviation by Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance, 1985, about 2000 employees of the civil Aviation Department were transferred by the Government to the newly created Authority— They formed a Samannya Parishad and launched a movement for withdrawal of the Ordinance of 1985 —The appellant contended that on the basis of the secret report the Government retired the appellant under section 9(2) of Act XII of 1974, mala fide and in colourable exercise of power.
The enquiry was made after a Gazette Notification. It was, therefore, not a secret enquiry as alleged by the appellant. It was a public and open enquiry. The persons who were appointed to conduct the enquiry were all responsible high officials of the Government against whom no complaint has been made by the appellant — The final Authority who took the decision to retire the appellant was supposed to know that a retirement under section 9 (2) of the Act is not a punishment at all—We do not think that under the special circum stances of this case it was a colourable exercise of power or a Misuse or abuse of power, as urged by the appellant.
AbuTaleb Vs. Govt of Bangladesh 3BLT (4D)-231
In the instant case the writ petitioners, who were employees of the Biman, therefore, fall well within the meaning of a ‘public servant’ as defined in Section 2(d) of the Act and it is only the Government who had the power to retire them in exercise of the power under Section 9(2) of the Act.
Biman Corporation & Ors. Vs. LC. (Rtd) M Zainul Abedin & Ors. 9BLT(AD)-235
Section 9(2) read with Bangladesh Biman Corporation Employees(Service) Regulations, 1979
Whether the respondents could be retired by the Bangladesh Biman Corporation from their services on completion of 25 years of service under regulation JIA(’2) of the Bangladesh Biman Corporation Employees (Service) Regulations, 1979 as amended
by S.R.O. 561184 dated 5 February 1984 without assigning any reason.
The respondents are clearly to be governed by Section 9(2) of the Act and not by the Regulations so far as the retiring authority is concerned.
Bangladesh Biman Corporation & Org. Vs. Md. Yousuf Haroon & Ors. 10 BLT (AD)-22
The petitioner being a member of the defence service, does not come within the definition of a public servant in the Act XII of 1974, as such, section 10 has got no manner of application so far he is concerned.
Air Marshal Jamaluddin Ahmed Vs. Govt of Bangladesh & Ors 13 BLT (HCD)48.