Md. Jahangir Kabir Vs. Bangladesh

Case No: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1805 of 2008

Judge: Shah Abu Nayeem Mominur Rahman ,

Court: Appellate Division ,,

Advocate: Muhammad Jamiruddin Sarkar ,,

Citation: VI ADC (2009) 828

Case Year: 2009

Appellant: Md. Jahangir Kabir

Respondent: Bangladesh

Subject: Administrative Law,

Delivery Date: 2009-4-15

Md. Jahangir Kabir

Vs.

Bangladesh, 2009,

VI ADC (2009) 828

 
Supreme Court
Appellate Division
(Civil)
 
Present:
Mohammad Fazlul Karim J
Md. Joynul Abedin J
Shah Abu Nayeem Mominur Rahman J
 
Md. Jahangir Kabir………………………..Petitioner

Vs.

Bangladesh, rep­resented by the Secretary, Ministry of Education, Primary and Mass Education Division, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka and another.............Respondents
 
Judgment
April 15, 2009.
 

The Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980

Section 4 (2)

Party to upgrade the position of the petitioner of Class-1 gazetted (non-cadre) post like the Instructors of P.T. Institute immediately vide its judgment and order dated 30.01.2005 holding, amongst others, that the upgrading of the position of Instructors of Instructors of the position of Instructors of P.T Institutes and refusing such upgradation to the teachers of the Experimental Schools is an act of discrimination inasmuch both the Instructors of P.T. Institutes and the Teachers of Experimental Schools have been enjoying the same status and pay including promotion.
 
The Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985

Rule 18

It provides that the limitation for filing of an appeal within three months of the date of the order appealed against, however the appellate authority, may extend said period for further three months subject to sufficient cause.
 
Lawyers Involved:
Muhammad Jamiruddin Sarkar, Senior Advocate, instructed by Md. Ferozur Rahman, Advocate-on-Record-For the Petitioner.
Not repre­sented- the Respondents.

Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1805 of 2008.
(From the judgment and order dated 13.07.2008 passed by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 105 of 2005.)
 
Judgment:
                 Shah Abu Nayeem Mominur Rahman J.- This leave petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.07.2008 passed in Administrative Appellate Tribunal Case No. 105 of 2005 by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka, reversing the judgment and order dated 30.01.2005 passed in A.T. Case No.293 of 1999 by the Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner hereof as Teacher, Experimental School, filed Administrative Tribunal Case No.293 of 1999 praying for a direction upon the opposite party to upgrade the position of the petitioner to Class-I Gazetted (non-cadre) post like Instructors of Primary Training Institute, contending, inter alia, that the petitioner was appointed as teacher of Experimental School and posted in the Primary Training Institute (PTI), Kurigram, and while in service he obtained the degree of Master of Arts in History and got Second Class from the University of Rajshahi in 1990 and ear­lier the petitioner obtained M.Ed. degree in 1988 from the same University and was placed in the First Class and that the instructors and the teaching staff of the Experimental Schools are treated alike and without any discrimination and that vide Memo No.511/4A-14/67-892-Edn dated 22.08.1967 provisions have been made for recruitment of the Assistant Superintendent of P.T. Institute (PTI) by promotion from the teaching staff of P.T. Institutes and their attached Experimental Schools inasmuch as the functions and responsibility of the PTI Instructors and of the Teachers of the attached Experimental Schools are inter­related, same and equivalent and that as per memo No.4970 dated 14.05.1987 of the Directorate of the Primary Education the Experimental Schools are the integral part of the P.T. Institutes and by memo No. 6009 Pri (Training) dated 15.09.1994 issued by the Directorate of Primary Education it has been directed that every Instructor of P.T. Institute shall teach, at least, in 18(eighteen) classes, in a week, including those of the Experimental School and that the Instructor of P.T. Institute and the Assistant Teachers of the Government Secondary School, having B. Ed. degree, enjoy the one and same rank, status and scale of pay and that the posts of junior teachers of the Government Secondary Schools, having scholar degree, were upgraded to the posts of Assistant Teacher by an order dated 16.08.1984 and that the Directorate of Primary Education by its memo No.10612-PETC dated 15.10.1984 addressed to the Secretary, Ministry of Education, rec­ommended for treating the teachers of the Experimental School, having B. Ed. degree, equivalent to the Assistant Teacher/P.T. Instructors with equal ben­efit and that the Directorate of Primary Education by its Memo No. 4970 Pri (Training) dated 14.05.1987 recommended (the same pay scale earlier allowed to the Instructors, P.T. Institutes) and thereafter vide order No.7/2A-1/87/936-Edn     dated 29.08.1988 the Ministry of Education with concurrence of the Ministry of Finance allowed the pay scale applica­ble to the Instructors, P.T. Institute and other admissible allowance to the teacher of the Experimental School hav­ing B. Ed. degree; and since then the petitioner was enjoying the Revised New National Scale 1350-2750 and that thereafter both teachers of the Experimental Schools and Instructors of P.T. Institutes were upgraded to the pay scale of Tk. 3400-6625/- on the basis of which the petitioner is drawing his salary now. By notification No. prag B/prosha-1/15(e)/41/94/24      dated 06.01.1996 issued from the Primary and Mass Education Division of the Ministry of Education all the posts of Instructors P.T. Institute have been upgraded to the position of Class-1 gazetted (non-cadre). But the said noti­fication has not yet been given effect for want of amendment of the relevant rules. The teachers of the Experimental Schools and the Instructors of P.T. Institutes are still drawing their pay in the same scale i.e. in the scale of Tk. 3400-6625/- and that since the post. of Instructors of P.T. Institute have been upgraded to the position of Class-1 gazetted (non-cadre), the petitioner and other teachers, being teachers of Experimental Schools, submitted a memorandum for allowing them equal status like those of the. Instructors of the P.T. Institutes but the same has been refused, against which an appeal has been submitted on 11.10.1999 but with­out any response, and hence the case and that the case on contest was allowed by the Administrative Tribunal directing the opposite party to upgrade the posi­tion of the petitioner to Class-1 gazetted (non-cadre) post like the Instructors of P.T. Institute immediately vide its judg­ment and order dated 30.01.2005 hold­ing, amongst others, that the upgrading of the position of Instructors of P.T. Institutes and refusing such upgradation to the teachers of the Experimental Schools is an act of discrimination inas­much both the Instructors of P.T. Institutes and the Teachers of Experimental Schools have been enjoy­ing the same status and pay including promotion.

2. Being aggrieved, the opposite party filed Administrative Appellate Tribunal Appeal No.105 of 2005, which, on contest, has been allowed and the judgment of the A.T. Case No.293 of 1999 has been set aside, by the appellate Court's judgment and order dated 13.07.2008, on the ground of limitation observing that the petitioner was affected by the notification dated 06.01.1996, gazetted on 18.04.1996, but the departmental appeal was filed on 11.10.1999, that is long after more than 3 years, and that the Rule 18 of the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985 provides for filing of an appeal within three months of the date of the order appealed against, however the appellate authority may extend said period for further three months subject to sufficient cause. Challenging the said judgment and order dated 13.07.2008 passed by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal the respondent hereof at petitioner has come up with this leave petition.

3. Perused the petition and heard the learned Advocate and the learned Advocate found it difficult to persuade us that the period mentioned in Rule 18 of the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985 is not applica­ble on the petitioner. However the learned Advocate stressed on the limita­tion as provided in Article 4(2) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980 wherein, it is provided that where an appeal has been preferred, if not responded within 2(two) months, then the Administrative Tribunal may be moved within 6(six) months from the said date and accordingly the case has been filed in time.

4. We do not find any substances in the submission inasmuch as the' time limit for preferring  appeal being  fixed  for 3(three) months,  with  provision to extend for further 3(three) months, the petitioner's appeal filed after long  3 years is hopelessly time barred and thus we do not find any illegality  in the impugned judgment and order.

The petition is accordingly dismissed.
Ed.