Public Servants Retirement Act, 1974

 

Public
Servants Retirement Act [XII of 1974]


Section 2(d)—

While
interpreting local authority as mentioned in section 2(d) of Public Servants
(Retirement) Act the definition of “local authority” as mentioned in
section 2(28) of General Clauses Act will be applicable.

Sayed Nurul
Hossain vs Secretary, Ministry of Industries 51 DLR 226.

 

Section 5(1)—

The petitioner’s
contract service has been terminated in terms of the contract to which he was a
party. Since his appointment has been cancelled in terms of the contract, the
writ jurisdiction is not attracted to his case.

Abdul Bari
Sarker vs Bangladesh 46 DLR (AD) 37.

 

Section 5(3)—

Since the
appointment of the petitioner in the project is in fact re—employment and the
approval of the President having not been obtained before issuing Annexure—A,
the appointment of the petitioner as Project Director was illegal.

Sayed Nurul
Hossain vs Secretary, Ministry of Industries 51 DLR 226.

 

Section 9—

Option to
retire—Option for retirement of a public servant is given only to one who has
completed 25 years of service and to none else. It cannot be read in section 9
of the Act that a public servant may exercise his option to retire prior to
completing 25 years of service. This completion is a condition precedent to opt
for retirement.

Mofizur
Rahman vs Bangladesh Parjatan Corporation 44 DLR 436.

 

Section 9(2)—

If a Government
servant is retired from service not on consideration of his service record but
on consideration of an impartial report submitted by impartial high Government
officials after an open enquiry on an incident of an extremely grave nature,
then it is for the Govern­ment to decide whether to take disciplinary
proceedings against the leading lights of the incident or to retire them in the
public interest.

Abu Taleb vs
Govenment of Bangladesh 47 DLR (AD) 138.

 

Section 9(2)—

An employee
can be retired from service by the Corporation in exercise of power under Rule
5 as well as Regulation 11A(2) and it is not correct to say that Rule 5 does
not entitle the Corporation to retire its employee from service.

Bangladesh
Biman Corporation and others vs Md Yousuf Haroon and others 54 DLR (AD) 161.

 

Section 9(2)—

Retirement
with full pension benefits after completion of 25 years of service is not a
punishment nor does it contain any stigma and it is altogether different from
dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement which are different kinds of
punishment described in Rule 3 of the Government Servants (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules.

MA Gafur and
another vs Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of
Defence and another 56 DLR (AD) 205.

 

Public Servants (Retirement) Act, 1974

 

Public
Servants (Retirement) Act, 1974

 

Sections—2(d)
and 9(2)

Public
servant—Authority of the Government to retire public servant in public interest
after completion of 25 years service.

Bangladesh
Biman Corporation Vs Ltd. Col. (Rtd) Md. Zainul Abedin and ors. 20 BLD (AD) 230.

 

Sections—4
and 9

The
scheme of the retirement of the petitioners under special circumstances is
outside the ambit of the Public Servant’s (Retirement) Act, 1974. It was in
fact a special arrangement for those who voluntarily want to retire on getting
some financial benefits. There was no compulsion on the part of any of the
petitioners to accept the special scheme of retirement. The petitioners went
into voluntary retirement out of their own free will and as such they cannot be
allowed to turn round to say that the scheme is illegal and is violative of the
provisions of the Public Servant’s (Retirement) Act. 1974.

Md. Nurul
Haque Vs Govt. of Bangladesh and ors., 18 BLD(AD)142

Ref:
1949 All England Law Reports, Kings Bench Division, 724—Not applicable.

 

Section—5(3)

Since
the appointment of the petitioner in the project is in fact re-employment of
the petitioner in BSTI and the approval of the President having under section
5(3) of the Act has not been obtained before issuing Annexure-A, the
appointment of the petitioner as Project Director was illegal, the said
appointment could be cancelled by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and as such there
is no illegality in the impugned order cancelling the reemployment of the
petitioner.

Syed Nurul
Hossain Vs Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Industries,
Dhaka and others, 19 BLD (HCD) 261.

 

Section—9
(1) (2)

Optional
Retirement

Sub-Section
(1) of Section 9 of the Act provides that a public servant may opt to retire
from service any time after he has completed 25 years of service by giving
notice in writing to the appointing authority at least 30 days prior to the
date of his intended retirement while sub-section (2) of Section 9 provides
that the Government may retire from service a public servant in the public
interest at any time after he has completed 25 years of service without
assigning any reason.

In
the instant case. none of the petitioners completed 25 years of service on the
date of their impugned retirement. It is also evident from the retirement order
itself that it was not made in the public interest but in effecting
retrenchment in the Corporation. Moreover, under sub-section (2) of section 9
of the Public Servants (Retirement) Act, 1974 the authority to order retirement
vested in the Government and not in the Corporation, although the employees
affected belonged to a Corporation. The impugned order of retirement is
therefore illegal and without jurisdiction.

Abul Hossain
and others Vs. Bangladesh Jute Corporation & ors, 15 BLD (HCD) 341

 

The
Public Servant (Retirement) Act,l974 (XII of 1974) has been made applicable to
the employees of the Bangladesh Biman Corporation. Even after amendment of
Regulation I in 1984 there has been no corresponding amendment of Rules 3 and 4
of the Bangladesh Biman Employees (Pension and Gratuity) Rules, 1988. In the
instant case the petitioner was appointed before the amendment of the
Regulation No. 11 of the Bangladesh B iman Corporation Employees (Service)
Regulations 1979. Before its amendment the retirement age of the Stewardess was
57 years. Therefore, the petitioner’s right to remain in service till she
completes 57 years of age cannot be curtailed on the strength of a subsequent
amendment which was not in existence at the time of her appointment. The
reduction of the age limit of the petitioner from 57 years to 35 years on the
strength of Regulation No. 11 made in 1984 does not have any sanction of law
the same being violative of Article 28 of the Constitution.

Jonaba Dalia
Parveen Vs. Bangladesh Biman Corporation, 16BLD(HCD)357

Ref:
45 DLR(AD)122; A.I.R.1981 (SC) 1829; 1992 (SC) 392—Cited.

 

Section—9(2)

Sub-section
2 of Section 9 of Act. XII of 1974

Since
it appears from the office record that the decision to retire the petitioner
was taken in the public interest, mere non- mentioning of the words “in the
public interest” in the impugned order of retirement does not at all effect its
legality.

Retirement—whether
a punishment—to take or not to take disciplinary action under the relevant
rules against a delinquent Government servant is a matter which is absolutely
within the discretion of the Government. In a case of a Government servant who
has completed 25 years of service, the authorities may even start proceedings
against him on a given charge and thereafter may drop the same and proceed
under section 9(2) of the Act to retire him.

Retirement
with full pentionary benefits after completion of 25 years of service is not a
punishment nor does it contain any stigma. Such retirement is altogether
different from ‘dismissal’ ‘removal’, ‘compulsory retirement’, which are
different kinds of punishment as contemplated in rule 3 of the Government
Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1976.

Shah
Mohammad Zahurul Hoque Vs. Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh.
14 BLD (HCD) 491.

Ref:
MA. Rashid, Assistant Engineer, Bangladesh Water Development Board Vs.
Secretary, Ministry of Power, Water Resources and Flood Control and another, 31
DLR(HCD) 339; Habibullah Khan Vs. Shah Azharuddin Ahmed and others; 35
DLR(AD)72; Farzand Ali and others Vs. West Pakistan, 22 DLR(SC)208;ShyanLal Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and another, A.I.R. 1954(SC)369; Abdur Rashid Vs.
Government of Bangladesh, 30 DLR(HCD)40, India Vs.CoI. J.N. Sinha and another;
SCC (md) (1970)Vol, 2, Page 458; Writ Petition No. 2385 of 1990 (Janab Abdul
Kalam Md. Sayedul Islam Vs. Biman Bangladesh Airlines and others.)

 

PUBLIC SERVANT’S (RETIREMENT) ACT, 1974

 

PUBLIC SERVANT’S (RETIREMENT) ACT, 1974 (XII OF 1974)

 

Government power to retire a Government
servant
—The power of the Government to retire a Government servant before
the age of superannuating is only on the ground of ‘public interest’—That is to
say there must be a case that the Government servant concerned suffers from
inefficiency or incompetence.

Government
servant substantively appointed has the right to hold the post till the age of
superannuation—This right is subject to law conforming to constitutional
provisions.

Section
9(2) of Act XII of 1974 permitting an impugned notification prematurely
retiring appellant without affording opportunity of showing cause is violative
of Article 135 of the Constitution.

A
Government servant is retired with full pension after 25years service not as a
measure of punishment—It does not bear any stigma, nor any imputation is made
or allegation is brought against the Government servant when thus retired with
pension—The Indian Supreme Court has consistently held that premature
retirement is not a punishment and it does not amount to removal—This is no
reason to take a different view in this case.

Dr.
Narul islam Vs. Bangladesh and others, 1BLD (AD) 140

Ref.
A.I.R. 1958 (SC)36; A.I.R. 1964 (SC) 600; A.I.R. 1954(SC)369; A.I.R. 1975 (SC)
1487; A.I.R. l965(SC)280; A.I.R. 1965 (SC)l 967.

 

Violation of equality clause of the
Constitution
—Section 9(2) of Act XII of 1974 conferring unfettered
discretion on the Government in the matter of compulsory retirement without any
guideline either in the Act or in the Rules framed there under is violative of
equality clause of the Constitution—Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972, Articles
27 and 29.

Dr.
Nurul Islam vs. Bangladesh and others; 1BLD (AD) 140

Ref:
A.IR. l958 (SC)538; A.LR. 1955 4SC)191;PLD1957(SC)159;PLD1957 (SC) 9; A.I.R.
1961 (SC)552; PLDI 958(SC)4 1; A.I.R. 1956(SC)44; (1968) 1 All. E.R. 694;
A.I.R. 1954 (SC) 369; A.I.R. 1957 (SC) 892; A.I.R. 1965 (SC) 280; A.I.R. 1975
(SC) 1487; A.I.R. 1970 (All) 269; A.I.R. 1972 (Mys) 71; PLD 1967(Lah) 227;
PLD1959 (SC) 37; PLD 1971 (Kar) 333; 19DLR(SC)281; 1957 SCA. 660.

 

Section — 2(d)

Public Servant—Public servant includes
any person who is in the service of the Republic, corporation, nationalised
enterprise or local authority as defined in clause (d) of section 2 of the
Public Servants (Retirement) Act, 1974.

Golam
Morshed Vs. Bangladesh Textile Mills Corporation & ors., 1BLD (HCD) 420

 

Sections — 3 and 4

Service—Termination of service— Simple
termination of service of any employee of any statutory corporation even
invoking any provision of any contract or terms of service is grossly violative
of the provision of section 4 read with section 3 of the Public Servants
(Retirement) Act, 1974.

Golam
Morshed Vs. Bangladesh Textile Mills Corporation and others, 1 BLD (HCD)420

 

Section —4

Termination of service In the absence
of any publication of Rules and Regulations relating to terms and conditions of
service in terms of Articles 24 and 25 of P.O. No. 27 of 1972 and without
holding a proceeding there under upon giving a cause, no employee of a
statutory corporation can be dismissed, removed or even terminated from service
prior to attainment of the age of retirement as specified in Public Servants
(Retirement) Act, 1974 — Bangladesh, Industrial Enterprises (Nationalisation)
Order,1972 (P.O. 27 of 1972), Articles, 24 and 25. –

Golam
Morshed Vs. Bangladesh Textile Mills Corporation & ors., 1 BLD (HCD) 420.

Ref:
IBLD 86—Cited.

 

Section — 9(2)

Compulsory retirement—Section 9(2) of
Act XII of 1974 conferring unfettered discretion on the Government in the
matter of compulsory retirement without any guideline either in the Act or in
the rules framed there under is violative of equality clause of the
Constitution. — Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972, Articles 27 and 29.

 

Per F. Munim, J:

Since
neither the impugned provisions nor the Act nor the rules containing them
provide any principle or guideline for the exercise of discretion by the
Government when it proposes to retire a Government servant from amongst a group
of government servants similarly situated and holding similar jobs, there
invariably exists scope far arbitrary exercise of such discretion. What is of
importance and consequence to the Government servant concerned, who is proposed
to be retired, is that the discretion of the relevant authority must be seen to
have been exercised on some such principles as are discernible in Fundamental
Rule 56, Note 2, East Bengal .Service Rule and Rule 3 of the Bangladesh Public
Servants Retirement Rules, 1973. Where such basis has been provided by the
enunciation of such principles, whether under the Act or rules made under an
Act or even in the note to such rules regarding the retirement of government
servants, the concerned authority before exercising its discretion, has to
conform to the principles so provided therein … The omission of such basis in
the Public Servants (Retirement) Rules, 1975 leaves scope to the concerned
authority to arbitrarily retire a Government servant who has completed 25 years
of service. The existence of such principles as are found in the Rules of 1973
would have provided a complete answer to any challenge to their
constitutionality, inspite of the expression “without assigning any reason’
used in section 9(2) of the Act. In such a case the authority concerned would
have remained free, so as not to disclose any reason in the retirement order,
but if its action in retiring a Government servant was challenged as arbitrary,
as has been done by the appellant in the present case, them authority could
have disclosed before the Court the basis of its action.

 

Per F. Munim, J:

The
minimum principle or guideline as has been provided in service rules as appear
from the cases cited in the judgment is that of public interest or the interest
of public service. If either the impugned Act or the rules made there under
provided such principle, the minimum requirement of law as showing the
existence of some guideline for the exercise of discretion in retiring a
Government servant, who has completed 25 years of service, would, be satisfied,
thus making it immune from any challenge on the ground of d crimination
violative of Arts. 27 and 29 of Constitution. In the absence of such a guide
line either in the Act or the rules from there under, section 9(2) of Act XII
of 19 suffers from unconstitutionality and the I pugned action based on it is
open to the chalenge as being discriminatory and in violatof the equality
provisions of the Constitution

Ref:
A.I.R. I 958(SC)538; A.I.R. I 955(

191;
PLD 1957 (SC)l59; PLD1959(SCk A.I.R. 196 l(SC)552; PLD I 958(SC)4 1; A.I.R..
1956 (SC) 44; (1968) lAll. E.R.694; A.IR.. 1954 (SC) 369; A.I.R.l957 (SC) 892;
A.L 1965 (SC) 280; A.I.R.l975(SC)1487; AJL 1970 (AlI)296; A.I.R.1972(Mys)7l;
PLDI96 (Lah) 227; PLD1959(SC) 37; PLDI97I (K 333; I9DLR(SC) 281; 1957SCA
660—CiteL

 

 

 

Per Ruhul Islam, J:

In
the absence of any principle or guide line for the exercise of uncontrolled and
unqualified discretion, S. 9(2) of the Act vided the scope to the authority to
pick choose and to discriminate between Government servants similarly placed on
complete of 25 years of service in the matter of premature retirement and as
such discrimination – inherent in the Act itself and S. 9(2) is violative of
Articles 27 and 29.

 

Per B.H. Chowdhury, J:

Neither
the Act nor the rules provide a principle or guideline for the exercise of discretion
by the Government when it proposed to retire a Government servant under S. 9(2.
In such case the scope for arbitrary exercise i discretion cannot be ruled out
as happened this case.

Dr.
Nurul islam Vs. Bangladesh aad others, 1BLD (AD) 140

 

Section — 9(2)

Section
9(2) of Act XII of 1974 permitting an impugned notification prematurely retiring
appellant without affording him opportunity of showing cause is violative of
Artclee 135 of the Constitution.

 

Per Ruhul Islam, J:

Premature
retirement is per se a punishment, because the Government servant is –prived of
his right to continue in service until he attains the age of superannuation and
he loses the benefit of service accrued to him. Termination of service before
his superannuation is undoubtedly removal if not termed as ‘dismissal’.. It is
true that the (impugned) order does not contain any stigma, but the very fact
that the appellant was selected out of a number of persons similarly placed,
and consequently he has been deprived not only from continuing in the
employment for the remaining period of his term of service but also from some
of the service benefits accrued to him, makes out a case of punishment. In effect,
whatever may be the phraseology used in terminating the service, it is
punishment imposed on him, for it not only destroys his right to the post held
by him, but also inevitably carries with it a stigma. Such a termination is
‘removal’ within the meaning of Article 135 of the Constitution. Therefore the
statute or rule providing a mode of terminating service at the discretion of
the authority without complying with impugned action having been taken against
the appellant without issuing any notice upon him or giving him an opportunity
of being heard before taking the impugned action, the impugned notification is
violative of Article 1 35 of the Constitution.

Ref:
A.I.R.1958 (SC) 36; A.I.R. 1954 (SC) 369; A.I.R.1964 (SC) 600; A.I.R.1975 (SC)
l487 —Cited.

 

 

 

Per S. Ahmed, J:

A
Government servant is retired with full pension after 25 years service not as a
measure of punishment. It does not bear any stigma, nor any imputation is made
or allegation is brought against the Government servant when thus retired with
pension … The Indian Supreme Court has consistently held that premature
retirement is not a punishment and it does not amount to removal.

Ref:
A.I.R1954SC369; A.I.R1965SC280; A.1.R.1965 SC1967; A.I.R.1975SC487 — Cited.

Dr.
Nurul Islam Vs. Bangladesh and others, 1BLD (AD) 140

 

Section—9(2)

Government Servant — Compulsory retirement
For validity of an order of compulsory retirement, Government must form an
opinion as to the necessity of retiring an employee in public interest —
There1must be materials to support that the employees retirement is necessary
in public interest —. Public Servants (Retirement) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981
(VI of 1981), S—4.

A.K.M.
Arshad Ali Vs. Government of Bangladesh, 1BLD (HCD)399

Ref:
I BLD (AD)140 — Relied.

 

Section — 9(2)

Government Servant—Compulsory retirement—Fundamental
right to equality— Government record must show that the Government has
considered the necessity of such retirement and the retirement is in public
interest—Government did not apply its mind as to why amongst 34 doctors who
completed 25 years of service the petitioner should be signed out for
compulsory retirement— Such retirement must be held to be discriminatory and
ordered with ulterior motive—Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972, Articles 27 and
29.

Dr.
Abu Ahmed chowdhury Vs Bangladesh, 2BLD (HCD) 98

Ref:
I BLD (AD) 140; 1BLD 399 — relied.

 

Section — 9(2)

Service matter — Order of retirement— It’s
validity
— There is no instance of misconduct on the part of the respondent
prior to passing of the impugned order of retirement — According to the
Government the action was taken with a view to enforcing strict discipline in
the office — Such justification for taking exemplary punishment only on finding
the respondent absent for a short period is undoubtedly arbitrary — Law does
not empower the Government to päs such arbitrary order of retirement. [Per
Ruhul Islam, J.]

Habibullah
Khan Vs. Shah Azharuddin Ahmed and others, 3 BLD(AD)143

 

Section—9(2)

 

Retirement order – In what case
retirement should be resorted to is a matter within the absolute discretion of
the authorities — Retirement with full pensionary benefits after completion of
25 years service is not a punishment nor does it contain any stigma — Even if
respondent’s punishment has been referred to as an exemplary punishment in the
office file, still then when the action of the Government is found to have been
taken in accordance with law and there is no malafide therein, it cannot be
assailed as arbitrary. [Per Shahabuddin Ahmed, J. (dissenting)]

 

Public interest — A person aggrieved by
retirement order may contend that the order was not in the public interest —
Government is the better judge to decide what is public interest.

There
may be various reasons for which the Government may retire a Government servant
after he completed the requisite period of service qualifying for pension; the
Government is in a better position to decide whom to retire. It is not possible
for a Court to sit on judgment over Government’s action if from the facts
disclosed it does not appear that Government’s action was malafide or courable
exercise of power. Subject to these limitations, the discretion of the
Government in such a matter is absolute. The Court may call for record only to
see that the Government had some materials for deciding that retirement of a
Government servant was considered necessary in the public interest and that
order of retirement was not malafide — In this case the order of retirement is
found to be perfectly lawful. [Per Shahabuddin Ahmed J. (dissenting).]

Public interest—Whether order of
retirement is in public interest can be examined by the Court — The Court may
declare it not in public interest after examining materials produced. [Per
Fazie Munim, J.]

Habibullah
Khan Vs. Shah Azharuddin Ahmed and others, 3 BLD (AD) 143

Ref:
33DLR (AD)20 1; PLD1958SC 181; I 97OPLDSC98; PLD1 969(SC)14—discussed.

 

Public Servants (Retirement) Act, 1974

Public Servants (Retirement) Act, 1974


 

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

Section-2(d)

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) Proviso

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

Section-9 (2)

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.

Held :
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

Section-9(2)

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

Regulation-11A(2)

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.

Held:
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

Section —10

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.