The Services (Re-Organisation and Conditions) Act, 1975 (Act No. XXXII of 1975) Section-5 Read with The Services (Grades, Pay and Allowances) Order, 1977 Section-3 Read with The Surplus Public Servants Absorption Ordinance, 1985 (No. XXIV of 1985)
Sections-5 & 6
Whether in a graded service, seniority counts from the date of entry in a grade
The appellant joined the Presidents Secretariat in Islamabad on 29.9.70 as an Upper Division Assistant. On return to Bangladesh he was taken in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the same post carrying a scale of pay of Tk.310-670/- which was in Grade-Vu of National Scale of Pay. His service was declared as surplus by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs by a memo date 23.6.76 and his name was forwarded to the Ministry of Establishment for absorption. By an order dated 20.11.76 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs asked the appellant to join the Taxes Department as Inspector of Taxes. He was released from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 22.11.76 and on the same day he was absorbed as Inspector of Taxes in the office of the Income Tax Commissioner, Dhaka (North Zone) in Central Salary Circle-2 in the same scale of pay as above. At the time of filing the petition before the Administrative Tribunal the appellant was serving in the Contractors’ Circle-3 at Dhaka (East Zone). At the time of preparation of the List of Seniority the appellant found that his period of service was counted not from the date of his joining the service on 29.9.70, but from the date of joining as Inspector of Taxes on 22.11.76. Appellant’s prayer for a direction
to reckon the period from 29.9.70 for the purpose of counting his seniority.
Establishment Division issued Memo No. ED(R-1 1) S-59/77-25 (500) dated 20.3.79, This memo is the sheet-anchor of the appellant’s case. It is his case that in 1976 the post of Inspector of Taxes and an Upper Division Assistant were equivalent posts because they carried the same grade and scale of pay and there was no other yardstick of measurement of equivalence between a ministerial post and an executive post at that time. The appellant is right. Subject to the implementation of the recommendations of the National Pay Commission by an order notified in the Official Gazette under section 5 of Act No. XXXII
of 1975, if the appellant’s seniority was fixed at any time between 22.11.76 (when he joined the Taxes Department as Inspector of Taxes) and 30.6.77 (When the New National Grade and Scale of Pay was not yet introduced), he could have reasonably claimed the counting of his past service for determining his seniority. The respondents could not then have been heard to say that the post of Inspector and the post of Upper Division Assistant are higher or lower posts, entailing higher or lower degrees of responsibility. The Inspector of Taxes and Upper Division Assistant being equivalent posts both for purposes of
grade and scale of pay the appellant was entitled from 22.11.76 to 30.6.77 to count his previous service for fixation of seniority, in terms of the Establishment Division’s Memo dated 20.3.79. But both the appellant and the respondents missed the essential point in the entire litigation, namely, that on and from 1.7.77 the amalgamation of Upper Division Assistant and Inspector
of Taxes into the same grade and scale of pay was done away with, making it a thing of the past, and obliterated event, leaving no trace of any vested right that may have accrued upto 30.6.77. From 1.7.77 an Upper Division Assistant and Inspector of Taxes are not equivalent posts, either in respect of grade or in respect of scale of pay. The appellant will not be considered to have been absorbed in an equivalent post. Yes, he was absorbed in an equivalent post in 1976, but the equivalence “ceased to exist” from 1.7.77. Because of the respondents’ inability to bring into sharp focus this vital legal aspect of the matter the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal has made a foray into redundant considerations, like the distinction between the duties of an Upper Division Assistant and an Inspector of Taxes. The basic legal position is that from 1.7.77 the appellant remains absorbed in a post different in grade and scale of pay from the post of Upper Division Assistant and therefore with no assistance from the Establishment Division Memo dated 20.3.79 and the various other Government Memos brought to our notice by Mr. Abdur Rab Chowdhury can the appellant in any way be permitted to count his previous service from 29.9.70 to
21.11.76 for fixation of his seniority.
Md. A. F. B. Jahan Mia Vs. National Board of Revenue & Ors. 5BLT (AD)-121
We like to observe that under the service jurisprudence when an employee is charge sheeted he is also put under suspension till conclusion of the inquiry proceedings. A Director, Managing Director or chairman of a banking company does not serve under the Bangladesh Bank which has been merely entrusted with the powers of supervision and control of the Banking companies under the provisions of the Banking Companies Act, 1991. So the requirement of formation of an opinion by the Bangladesh Bank has been made before directing a Director, Chairman or Chief Executive of banking company to refrain from performing functions of his office during the pendency of the enquiry proceedings against him for his removal from office under Section 46 of the Act, Such opinion must be formed on the basis of relevant materials on record and not fancifully without any such material nor on the basis of irrelevant materials. But such opinion need not be mentioned in the order communicated to Director, Chairman or Chief Executive of the Banking company.
Abdur Rahim Chowdhury Vs. Bangladesh Bank 8BLT (HCD)146.