Rupali Bank (Employees) Service Regulations, 1981

 

Rupali Bank
(Employees) Service Regulations, 1981


Regulations 13(2) & 28—

The
objective to get rid of unwanted employees without taking recourse to procedure
of disciplinary action is likely to be frustrated if termination is made
dependent on actual receipt of notice pay.

Rupali Bank
and another vs Md Solaiman and others 49 DLR 526.

 

Regulation 16—

Duty to pay
pensions to a person who has worked for the stipulated period of time remains
an undercharged contractual obligation—Where the employee retires or is
terminated there must exist provision for payment of pension, describing the
mode and timing of payment of pension to terminated employees, else courts will
imply terms to that effect.

MA Jalil vs
Rupali Bank Ltd & others 54 DLR 566.

 

Rupali Bank Employees Service Regulations, 1981

 

Rupali Bank
Employees Service Regulations, 1981

 

Regulation—16

Bangladesh
Services Rules 1983, Rule—342(2)

Pension
is not an ex-gratia payment. Pension is earned by an employee during the period
he works and is part of the consideration of the contract of employment, though
the same is payable after his employment comes to an end. The Bank’s service
regulations adopted the Bangladesh Service Rules for payment relating to
pensions for its permanent employees, but the Bangladesh Service Rules have no
provision for payment of pension to terminated officers as there is no law to
terminate the services of a Government servants. But as Rule 342(2) of the said
Rules caters for a situation similar to termination simpliciter by providing
for retiring pension to an officer who is required by the Government to retire
after completing twenty-five years service, without giving any reason, a term
is implied into the Bank’s Service Regulations that Rule 342(2) shall apply to
employees terminated without assignment of reason.

M. A. Jalil
v. Rupali Bank Ltd. and others, 22 BLD (HCD) 264.

Ref:
Azizur Rahman v. Burmah Oil Company 13DLR458, Sarat Chand v. Sreemuthy Mohun
Bibi (1898) 2 CWN 201; Riding v. Hawking (1889) 14PD56; Mihir Datta v. Anadi
Lal Kukherjee AIR 1980 Cal 339; Bangladesh Bank v. Mohammad Abdul Mannan 46
DLR(AD)1; Rookes Case 1598 5 CoRep 998; The Moorcock (1889) 14PD64; Reigate v.
Union Manufacturing Co. (1918) 1 KB 592; Shirlaw v. Southern Foundries Ltd.
(1939)2 All ER 113; Trollope and Coils Ltd. v. North West Metropolitan Regional
Hospital Board (1973) 2 All ER 260; Greaves & Co. (Contractors) Ltd. v.
Baynham Meikie and Partners (1975) 3 All ER 99; Bansi Ram v. Narsingha Santra
IC 805; Municipal Council Salem v. B. Gururaja Rao (1935) AIR Mad 249.

 

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.