Inspector of
Explosive appointed as the Dy. Chief Inspector of Explosives and having
thereafter made over charge of Inspector of Explosives, becomes the Dy. Chief
Inspector of Explosives—No scope to argue that he acted as Dy. Chief Inspector
in addition to his post as Inspector of Explosives.

M.A. Rashid,
Vs. Government of Bangladesh & ors. (1981) 33 DLR 366.


for any length of time does not confer on a person any substantive right.

Shamsul Alam
Vs. Superintendent of Police, Bangladesh Railway (1981)33 DLR (AD) 100.


of retirement when illegal

Due to
personal animus which an officer- One Mr. Anisuzzaman Chowdhury, (who happens
to be the brother-in-law of the Minister) bore against Mr. Shah Azharuddin (the
petitioner in the writ petition,) the latter under the orders of the Minister
was illegally retired.

Azharuddin Ahmed. Vs. Government of Bangladesh & ors. (1981) 33 DLR 171


terminating the service of an employee, when held as being passed without

respondent was a Security Officer in the Tabani Beverage Co. Ltd. which under
P.O. No. 16 of 1972, was placed under the appellant in Freedom Fighters Welfare
Trust, set up under P.O. No. 94 of 1972. The respondent was employed by the
appellant as the Public Relations Officer. The respondent was transferred from
the Tabani Beverage Co. Ltd to Model Electrical Engineering Corporation,
another abandoned concern, under the management of the appellant, as Sales

appellant in relation to the respondent was exercising power as given to it by
P.O. 16, which does not authorize the appellant to transfer an employee of such
abandoned concern appointed before it became abandoned to another concern
placed under the management of Bangladesh Freedom Fighters Welfare Trust, and
as such the order of transfer was an unlawful order. The order of termination
was passed for defying the order of transfer, which is patently without
jurisdiction. The order of termination being beyond the powers of the
appellant, a statutory body, is amenable to be impugned in the Writ
Jurisdiction of the High Court Division.

Freedom Fighters Welfare Trust Vs. Burhanuddin Chowdhury (1981) 33 DLR (AD)


Service—Promotion to the next higher grade—Petitioner,
the senior most candidate not being a graduate, while the other candidates were
such graduates, his claim for promotion turned down and this caused nothing

Aminur Rahman. Vs. Chairman, BADC, Dhaka. (1981) 33 DLR 373.


(or dismissal) from service—
Punishment as indicated in the notice is
removal (not dismissal) from service—Actually punishment inflicted on the
delinquent servant is ‘dismissal’—Punishment by ‘dismissal’ in such a case

Ahmed Chowdhury Vs. People’s Republic of Bangladesh (1981) 33 DLR 329.

—An illegal
order of dismissal from service can be rectified by the High Court Division in
exercising its power of review. Ibid


if the order
is held invalid he would be entitled to reinstatement hut not to any arrears of

Saleh Ahmed Joarder
Vs. People’s Republic of Bangladesh. (1984) 36 DLR (AD) 26.


from service when takes effect.

letter from service becomes effective, that is irrevocable with effect from the
date of resignation. But if before the date when resignation takes effect the
concerned officer withdraws his resignation it amounts that his resignation is
withdrawn and there is, in fact, no resignation.

S.M. Golam
Mustafa Sarker Vs. Chairman, Bangladesh Jute Mills. (1981) 33 DLR 430.


& Pension.

—In case of
his re-instatement, the appellant will retire as Circle Officer and will get
pension on the basis of pay last drawn.

Saleh Ahmed
Joarder Vs. People’s Republic of Bangladesh. (1984) 36 DLR (AD) 26.


—Service—Security of service of an employee of statutory Corporation, set up
under P.O. 27 of 1972. Dismissal for breach of internal discipline, in the
absence of Rules, illegal. Termination simpliciter of employee’s service
permissible (Court directed that petitioner-employee’s service be terminated by
Corporation instead of his being dismissed.)

An employee
of the Corporation set up by Presidential Order 27 of 1972 is an employee under
the State.

Md. Hazrat Ali
Vs. Chairman Bangladesh Chemical Industry Corporation. (1981) 33 DLR 306.



Rule 9(22) defines ‘temporary service’ as a post which carries a definite rate
of pay sanctioned for a limited time. Temporary posts arc often outside a
regular cadre and are usually sanctioned from year to year. A temporary service
is created to meet the requirement of sudden rush of business. A person may be
appointed temporarily in a vacancy caused by the absence from duty of another
person having lien therein. In that case, a subordinate officer may also be
pointed to officiate in the higher post: whether it is “officiation” in a
higher a post or it is a temporary appointed, it continues till the person on
leave resumes duties or the vacancy is filled on permanent basis. Some
temporary services’ have been interpreted in a judicial pronouncements as
“purely temporary  distinguished from a
temporary service which is indefinite in duration and the length of service
rendered by a person therein is reasonably long so as to confer upon it the
Status of quasi-permanent’ or ‘non- temporary’ service.

Saleh Ahmed
Joarder Vs. People’s Republic of Bangladesh (1984) 36 DLR (AD) 26.



service is non-temporary or quasi- permanent.

uninterrupted service rendered by the appellant for over 5 years could be
easily treated as one non-temporary or quasi-permanent attracting the
constitutional protection under Article 135. This case falling within the four
corners of the case of Ismail Hossain, I find no reason whatever to take a
different view.

Saleh Ahmed
Joarder Vs. People’s Republic Waqf Bangladesh. (1984)36 DLR(AD). 26.


of Service

appellant (in C.A. 169/79) was an officer of B.M.O.G. Corporation (called
Corporation). Later he was posted in the Titas Gas Co. Ltd. (called Enterprise)
as the Administrative Officer of the Enterprise.


His service
was however terminated by the General Manager of the Enterprise on 24.5.79
which he challenged as illegal by invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High

It may be
stated that originally the appellant was an auditor of the Titas Gas Co.
(Enterprise). In October 1965 he ceased to be an employee of this Company.

Bangladesh came into being he was freshly appointed as the Administrative
Manager in the Enterprise which was placed under the Corporation under the
nationalization measures of P.O. 27/72.

appellant’s claim is that though he has been placed by the Corporation as an
employee of the Enterprise; in licit he remains an officer of the Corporation,
that is, he enjoys the status of an employee of a statutory body.

High Court
Division gave him no relief and thereupon he moved the Appellate Division.

Held: Titas Gas
Transmission and Distribution Co. lost its autonomous character after it was
placed under the Mineral Oil and Gas Corporation after it is declared as an
abandoned property.

After the
changes brought about by P.O. 16 of 1972 and P.O 27 of 1972, ills clear that
the Titas Gas Transmission and Distribution Co. Ltd. lost its corporate

Hossain Chowdhury Vs. General Manager, Titas Gas Transmission. (1981) 33 DLR
(AD) 186.

—Titas Gas
Co. is entirely controlled by the Bangladesh Mineral Oil and Gas Corporation.   Ibid

—As Titas
Gas Transmission and Distribution Co. lost its autonomous character, with the
Corporation gaining control over it the appellant is in the service of the
Corporation and master and servant rule cannot apply to him and can therefore
invoke jurisdiction of article 102 of the Constitution.   Ibid


of service in terms of
law or contract

termination order casts stigma on the servants it amounts to removal
necessitating enquiry and show-cause notice.

Ranjan Jala Das Vs. Board of Trustees, (1981) 33 DLR 300.


of Principle of Natural Justice

appellant challenged an order of the Bangladesh Biman Corporation whereby some
employees junior to him were given two years ante-dated seniority.

of Bangladesh prepared a comprehensive formula for giving special facilities to
the Freedom Fighters and in pursuance thereof a Memorandum was issued.

In the
instant case the Bangladesh Biman in pursuance of the said Memorandum prepared
a revised seniority list dated 9.6.78. The appellant contended that this
revised seniority list has affected him adversely, and this was one in
violation of the principles of natural justice and without any legal authority.

Held: The
Appellate Division in the case reported in 31 DLR(AD) 305 came to the
conclusion that the employees of the Bangladesh Biman arc employees of a
statutory corporation and their appointments have been madcand sanctified by
necessary enactments.


the Bangladesh Biman Corporation Employees Service Regulations, 1979 were
framed on 20.12.79.

regulation has been framed empowering the preparation of revised seniority list
in terms of the 4 Memorandum. Therefore, any revised list, if prepared for
giving two years ante-dated seniority, would be without any backing of lawful
authority. Mere circular by an executive fiat would not be enough and therefore
the grievance of the appellant that his seniority has been affected without lawful
authority must be accepted.

Abdul Quddus
Vs. Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat. (1981) 33 DLR (AD) 50.