Government of Bangladesh Vs. Md. Zillur Rahman, VII ADC (2010) 67

Case No: Civil Petition for leave to Appeal No. 1450 of 2007

Judge: M. M. Ruhul Amin ,

Court: Appellate Division ,,

Citation: VII ADC (2010) 67

Case Year: 2010

Appellant: Government of Bangladesh

Respondent: Md. Zillur Rahman

Subject: Administrative Tribunal, Employment & Service,

Delivery Date: 2009-2-10

 
Supreme Court
Appellate Division
(Civil)
 
Present:
MM Ruhul Amin, CJ.
Mohammad Fazlul Karim, J.
Md. Tafazzul Islam, J.
Md. Joynul Abedin, J.
Md. Abdul Matin, J.
 
Government of Bangladesh, rep­resented by the secretary, Ministry of Communication, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka and others
………….............Petitioner
Vs.
Md. Zillur Rahman
………..................Respondent
 
Judgment
February 10, 2009.
 
The Administrative Appellate Tribunal held that the Divisional Electrical Engineer Office issued a letter requesting 11 subordinate offices to inform about the demands of the petitioner and out of 11 offices only Sub Assistant Engineer (Electrical) gave clearance and the office of the Financial Adviser, Rajshahi gave no objections and no clearance certificate was produced by other offices. The Administrative Appellate Tribunal accordingly held that, therefore, it cannot be claimed that “No Demand Certificate” was submitted as required by the authority for finalizing the pension and gratuity of the petitioner before the tribunal and the Administrative Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal in part with modifications….…(7)
 
Lawyers Involved:
M. A. Wahab, Senior Advocate, instructed by Md. Aftab Hossain, Advocate-on-Record- For the Petitioner.
Not represented- the Respondent.
 
Civil Petition for leave to Appeal No. 1450 of 2007
(From the judgment and order dated 26th September, 2007 passed by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 223 of 2003).
 
JUDGMENT
 
MM Ruhul Amin CJ.
 
 
1. This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26th September. 2007 passed by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal. Dhaka in Appeal No.223 of 2003 allowing the appeal in part with modifications.
 
2. Short facts as placed before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka are that the petitioner Md. Zillur Rahman joined in the Bangladesh Railway on 25.1.67. At the end of his tenure of service life he retired from the service on 5.1.2002 as usual while he was serving in the Syedpur Railway Factory as SSAE/Flec:/ PNT/Syedpur Bangladesh Railway, Syedpur. The last monthly pay at the time of his retirement was Tk. 8400/-. The petitioner enjoyed LPR from 5.1.2001 to 4.1.2002. He applied to the authority for pension and gratuity admissible under rules. But the authority refrained from granting him the pension as per Simplified Pension Rules of the Government. Hence, the petitioner filed the Administrative
Tribunal Case No. 26 of 2002 in the Administrative Tribunal, Bogra. The tri­bunal allowed the petition partly and ordered for granting pension and payment of arrear gratuity after deduction of Tk. 73,791/42. Hence, was the case.
 
3. The case of the appellant-opposite party was that the petitioner retired from service on 5.1.2002 after the period of his LPR from 05.01.2001 to 04.01.2002. The Audit Department raised several audit objections which relate financial involvement against him. Moreover, his stock sheets are still incomplete. The authority cannot make payment to the petitioner unless the audit objections involving Tk.3, 20,509/83 in total and stock sheets issued involving Tk. 10,391/- are paid and disposed by the peti­tioner. The petitioner also failed to pro­duce "No Demand Certificate" from the production Engineer, Syedpur.
 
4. The Administrative Tribunal allowed the case in part.
 
5. Being aggrieved by the impugned judg­ment and order passed by the Administrative Tribunal, Bogra the appel­lants preferred appeal being Appeal No.223 of 2003 before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal and the Administrative Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal in part with modifications.
 
6.  We have heard Mr. M.A. Wahab, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned judgment of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal and other connected papers on record.
 
7. The Administrative Appellate Tribunal held that the Divisional Electrical Engineer Office   issued a letter on 29.01.2001 requesting 11 subordinate offices to inform about the demands of the petitioner and out of 11 offices only Sub Assistant Engineer (Electrical) gave clear­ance and the office of the Financial Adviser, Rajshahi gave no objections and no clearance certificate was produced by other offices. The Administrative Appellate Tribunal accordingly held that, therefore, it cannot be claimed that "No Demand Certificate" was submitted as required by the authority for finalizing the pension and gratuity of the petitioner before the tribunal and the Administrative Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal in pail with modifications.
 
8. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any legal infirmi­ty   in the impugned judgment of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal.
 
The Petition is dismissed.
 
Ed.