Bangladesh Bridge Authority & another Vs. Mukul Kumar Biswas and others, 14 BLC (AD) (2009) 86

Case No: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1682 of 2008

Judge: Md. Joynul Abedin ,

Court: Appellate Division ,,

Advocate: Md. Nawab Ali,Md. Abdun Nur,,

Citation: 14 BLC (AD) (2009) 86

Case Year: 2009

Appellant: Bangladesh Bridge Authority

Respondent: Mukul Kumar Biswas and others

Subject: Administrative Law,

Delivery Date: 2009-2-17

 
Supreme Court
Appellate Division
(Civil)
 
Present:
M.M. Ruhul Amin CJ
Mohammad Fazlul Karim J 
Md. Tafazzul Islam J
Md. Joynul Abedin J
Md. Abdul Matin J
 
Bangladesh Bridge Authority & another
………........... Petitioners
Vs.
Mukul Kumar Biswas and others
…...................Respondents
 
Judgment
February 17, 2009.
 
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 102
It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the project, Jamuna Multipurpose Bridge, Project, Rehabilitation Project and Environment Project against which the writ petitioner respondents were appointed, has in the mean time, expired and there is no scope  to regularize or appoint the writ petitioner respondents in their previous post and position and it is practically impossible to carry out the judgment and order of the High Court Division. It is further contended that the case involves important questions of law of public importance as to the interpretation regarding regularization of Government servant appointed in project where project expired or abolished. Considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and perused the connected papers including the impugned judgment. There is no substance in the points raised. The High Court Division upon correct assessment of the legal position and materials on record arrived at a correct decision.…. (3&4)
 
Lawyers Involved
Md. Abdun Nur, Advocate-on-Record—For the Petitioners.
Md. Nawab Ali, Advocate-on-Record—For the Respondents.
 
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1682 of 2008.
(From the judgment and order dated 9-6-2008 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No.7173 of 2007).
 
JUDGMENT
 
Md. Joynul Abedin J.
 
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 9-6-2008 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division in Writ Peti­tion No. 7173 of 2007 making the Rule absolute.
 
2. The short fact is that writ petitioner-respondents filed the aforesaid writ petition challenging the order vide Memo dated 9-3-2002 dismissing them from their services in the writ respondent petitioner, Bangladesh Bridge Authority as illegal. The writ petitioner res­pondents joined in various posts in the writ res­pondent petitioner on various dates. The writ petitioner respondents were appointed by the writ respondents on condition "No work no pay" on urgent basis. Subsequently they were regularised on 5-11-2001 and 8-11-2001 by the Jamuna Multipurpose Authority. On 9-3-2002 the impugned letters were issued by the res­pondent Nos. 3 and 4 canceling the aforesaid appointment letters. Rule was issued and the writ respondent petitioners contested the same by filing affidavit-in-opposition and subse­quently, it was made absolute by the impugned judgment dated 9-6-2008. Hence this civil peti­tion for leave to appeal by the writ respondents.
 
3. Mr. Md. Abdun Nur, the learned Advo­cate-on-Record for the petitioners submits that the project, Jamuna Multipurpose Bridge, Project, Rehabilitation Project and Environment Project against which the writ petitioner res­pondents were appointed, has in the meantime, expired and there is no scope to regularise or appoint the writ petitioner respondents in their previous post and position and it is practically impossible to carry out the Judgment and order of the High Court Division. He lastly submits that the case involves important questions of law of public importance as to the interpretation regarding regularisation of Government servants appointed in project where project expired or abolished.
 
4. We have heard the learned Advocate-on-Record and perused the connected papers including the impugned judgment. We do not find any substance in the points raised. The High Court Division upon correct assessment of the legal position and materials on record arrived at a correct decision. We therefore find no reason to interfere with same.
 
The petition is accordingly dismissed.
 
Ed.