Md. Shahjahan Mia Vs. Government of Bangladesh and others, 1 LNJ (2012) 548

Case No: Writ Petition No. 10794 of 2007

Judge: Farah Mahmub,

Court: High Court Division,,

Advocate: Farid Uddin Khan,Mr. A.H.M. Mushfiqur Rahman,,

Citation: 1 LNJ (2012) 548

Case Year: 2012

Appellant: Md. Shahjahan Mia

Respondent: Government of Bangladesh and others

Subject: Writ Jurisdiction,

Delivery Date: 2011-08-11

HIGH COURT DIVISION
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
 
Mrs. Farah Mahbub, J. 
And
Mr. Farid Ahmed, J.

Judgment
11.08.2011
  Md. Shahjahan Mia
...Petitioner
Vs.
The Government of Bangladesh, and others
...Respondents
 
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 102
Admittedly, bringing some allegations the petitioner was suspended from his post which was challenged through a Suit. Then the Governing Body withdraw the order of suspension and the suit was also withdrawn and he joined in his post. During the suspension period the petitioner received 50% of his suspension allowance but the balance 50% was kept in the account of the College.

The Government Pleader also opined to return the balance 50% of the MPO of the petitioner. Hence the petitioner is entitled to receive the balance amount which was unduly kept in the Collage account and are now lying in the Government Treasury.          … (8 to 10)
 
Mr. Farid Uddin Ahmed, Advocate
…..For the Petitioner
Mr. A.H.M Mashfiqur Rahman, Advocate
…. For Respondent No. 7

Writ Petition No. 10794 of 2007
 
JUDGMENT
Farah Mahbub, J.

            In this rules issued under Article 102 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, the respondent nos. 1-5 have been called upon to show cause as to why they should not be directed to make payment to the petitioner of his entire arrear dues of TK. 1.39,272.24/= only, as payable to him for the period from 03.07.1999 to 01.08.2004 along with interest at the bank rate up to the date of payment.    
 
2.         Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner had been serving in the Birol  Degree- College (in short, the College) as an Assistant Professor of the Department of physics for long about 32 years with sincerely and efficiency since 24.07.21975. While in service in the College the petitioner was temporarily suspended by (he Governing Body of the College' on 01.07.1999 at the instance of some local vested quarter out of sheer conspiracy. Ultimately, he was dismissed from service on 08.11.1999 under rule 17(Ga) of the Non-Government Institution Administration and Management Rules. The petitioner was, therefore, constrained to institute Other Class Suit no.8O of 1999 before the court of Subordinate Judge, (now, the Joint District Judge), Dinajpur who subsequently passed an order of temporary injunction restraining Governing Body of the College from giving effeet to the order of dismissal and to allow him to serve till disposal of the suit. .Subsequently, the Governing Body of the College by adopting a resolution dated 17.07.2004 had withdrawn the order of suspension dated 01.07.1999 against the petitioner. Consequ-ently, he also withdrawn the said suit by way of mutual settlement. pursuant to the decision so adopted by the Governing Body of the College in its meeting, dated 17.07.2004 and also in consideration of the withdrawal of Other (class Suit No. 80 of 1999 by the petitioner on 27.07.2004, the College authority by its letter hearing Memo no. 72(1)/04 dated 31.07.2004 re-instated the petitioner in service asking him to join within 7 (seven) days from the date of receipt of  the  said order. The Petitioner accordingly joined in his respective post as Assistant Professor, (Physics) in the College on 01.O8.2004 which was duly accepted by the respondent no.7 on the same day.
 
3.         It has been contended that  the  petitioner  as  an  Assistant Professor of the Department of Physics of the College was entitled to get half of the balance amount of the government portion of salary and accordingly an amount of Tk.l ,89,272.24 only was payable to him on his re-instatement in .service, It has been asserted that though the said amount was withdrawn by respondent no.7 through bill but instead of paying to him the said amount was kept in the College account bearing A/C No.544 at Rupali Bank, Birol Branch, and that the respondent no.7 did not yet pay his arrear dues despite repeated requests so made to that effect. The anomaly was duly detected during, the course of audit by respondent no.4. Pursuant thereto the respondent no.3 vide Memo no. Sha;(Paridarshan) -5/07/32 dated 2 5.02.2007 recommended   for   taking legal action against the respondent No. 7 including the college authority for  withdra-wing the amount of Tk. 1 ,89,272.24 which was payable to the petitioner out of the government portion of salary. The relevant portion is quoted below:-

"জনাব মোঃ শাহজাহান মিঞা, সহ অধ্যাপক (পদার্থ) এর বিরুদ্ধে অশালীন ও অশুভ আচরনের জন্য কয়েক জন ছাত্রী অভিভবকের অভিযোগের প্রেক্ষিতে ৩/৭/৯৯ তারিখে সাময়িক বরখাস্ত করা হয়। জনাব মোঃ শাহজাহান মিঞা  এতদবিষয়ে ৮০/৯৯ নং মামলা দায়ের করিয়াছেন। মামলা প্রত্যহার এবং উভয়ের আলচনার প্রেক্ষিতে সাময়িক বরখাস্তের আদেশ প্রত্যাহার করা হয় এবং তিনি ১/৮/০৪ তারিখে পনুরায় কাজে যোগদান করেন । সাময়িক বরখাস্ত কালীন ৩/৭/৯৯ হইতে ৩১.০৭.২০০৪ পর্যন্ত বিধি মোতাবেক তিনি সরকারী বেতনের অর্ধেক প্রাপ্য ছিলেন। কিন্ত তাহার পূর্ণ বেতন বিল করিয়া সমুদয় (১,৮৯,২৭২/২৪) টাকা উত্তোলন করা হয়। উক্ত সময়ে তাহার পূর্ণ বেতন উত্তোলনের জন্য প্রতিষ্ঠান প্রধান দায়ী। এই বিষয়ে আইনানুগ ব্যবস্থা গ্রহণের জন্য যথাযথ কর্তৃপক্ষের দৃষ্টি আকর্ষণ করা হইল।"
 
4.         The petitioner, thereafter, sent a legal notice dated 26.09.2007 (Annexure-F)to the respondent nos. 6 and 7 requesting them to pay his arrear dues of Tk. 1,89,272.24 only along with interest at the bank-rate up to the date of payment thereof within 15(fifteen) days from the date of receipt of the notice. On the receipt thereof the respondent nos. 6 and 7 convened a meeting of the Governing Body of the college to be held on 05.12.2006 by issuance of notice dated 06.11.2006. Accordingly, in the meeting it was resolved that legal opinion would be sought for from the Government Pleader as to whether the period of suspension of the petitioner could, at all, be adjudged as working days or not. The Government Pleader vide memo no. (G.P./Din(2) 1/2007 dated 29.01.2007 gave his legal opinion to the effect that the Governing Body of [he College having had withdrawn the suspension and dismissal order and had re­instated the petitioner in his post as Assistant Professor (Physics), the period of suspension of the petitioner would be deemed to he his working days and he was, therefore, entitled under the rules to get his due salary and allowances and that it might he paid to him. The relevant portion is quoted below:-

“জনাব মোঃ শাহজাহান মিঞা বরখাস্তের আদেশ কলেজের গভর্নিং বডি প্রত্যাহার করে নিয়ে তাঁকে কলেজে তাঁর নিজ পদে পুনঃযোগদানের ও পুনর্বহালের অনুমতি দেওয়ায় তাঁর দরখাস্ত অবস্তায় থাকাকালীন সময় কর্মকাল হিসাবে গণ্য হবে এবং উহা প্রদান করা যেতে পাওে”
 
5.         But till date no action has been taken nor any money has been paid to the petitioner Hence, the application.
 
6.         Mr. Fariduddin Ahmed, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that despite legal notice (Annexure-F) sent by the petitioner upon the respondent nos. 6 and 7 to pay his entire arrear dues of TK. 1,89,272.24 only with interest and the legal opinion of the Government Pleader (Annexure-H-l), given to that effect, the respondents have not yet paid the same. He further submits that respondent nos. 6 and 7 have been trying to frustrate the process of payment of his said dues for the period from 03.07. 1997 to 01.08.2004 along with interest at the bank rate upto the date of payment thereof and thereby sought to render the order dated 25.022007 (Annexure-E)nugatory with malafide intention.
 
7.         Conversely, Mr. A.H.M Mushfiqnr   Rahman, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 7 by filing affidvit-in-opposition submits that the said respondent on receipt of the memo dated 22.10.2007 issued by the Assistant Secretary, Ministry of education had duly complied with the direction by depositing the said amount of money in favour ot the government in local treasury (Sonali Bank Ltd.) dated O8. 11. 2007 (Annexure-4(a) and that it was duly communicated to the respondent no.2 vide memo dated 09.01.200S (Annexure-5) stating  inter aliia,-

“প্রতিষ্ঠান প্রধানের জবাব পর্যালোচনায় দেখা যায় সাময়িক বরখাস্ত কালীন সহঃ অধ্যাপক (পদার্থ) জনাব মোঃ শাহজাহান মিঞা, আধ্যাপক বিরুদ্ধে অশালীন ও অশুভ আচরনের জন্য কয়েক জন ছাত্রী অভিভবকের অভিযোগের প্রেক্ষিতে ৩/৭/৯৯ তারিখে সাময়িক বরখাস্ত করা হয় । উক্ত বরখাস্ত আদেশের বিরুদ্ধে তিনি মামলা করেন। বরখাস্ত কালীন সময়ে পূর্ণ বেতন উত্তোলন করা হলেও তাঁকে  ৫০% টাকা প্রদান করা হয় পরবর্তীতে জনাব মোঃ শাহজাহান মিয়া মামলা প্রত্যাহার করায় এবং কলেজ কর্তৃপক্ষের সিদ্ধান্ত অনুযায়ী সকল কার্যক্রম ফয়সালা হওয়ায় তিনি অবশিষ্ট ১,৮৯,২৭২/২৪ টাকা ৮/১০/০৭ তারিখে সরকারী কোষাগারে চালানের মাধ্যমে জমা প্রদান করেছেন বিধায় আপত্তি থেকে অব্যাহতি দেয়া হল।”
 
8.         Admittedly, bringing some allegations the petitioner was suspended temporality from his respective post on 11.07.1999 Challenging which he instituted Other Class Suit no. 80 of 1999. Subsequently, the Governing Body took decision to withdraw the. suspension order. Consequently, the suspension order was withdrawn and accordingly the petitioner also withdrawn the said suit and joined in the respective post. During the suspension period the petitioner received 50%  of   his   subsistence   allowance.   The   balance   50% amounting to Tk. 1,89,272.24 was kept in the account of the college authority without  any   legal   basis.  The  said  act   of' the  College authority was detected during the course of audit dated 26.12.2006 ( Annexure-E), wherein it was opined-

“জনাব মোঃ শাহজাহান মিঞা, সহঃ আধ্যাপক (পদার্থ) এর বিরুদ্ধে অশালীন ও অশুভ আচরনের জন্য কয়েক জন ছাত্রী অভিভবকের অভিযোগের প্রেক্ষিতে ৩/৭/৯৯ তারিখে সাময়িক বরখাস্ত করা হয় । জনাব মোঃ শাহজাহান মিঞা  এতদবিষয়ে ৮০/৯৯ নং মামলা দায়ের করিয়াছেন। মামলা প্রত্যহার এবং উভয়ের আলচনার প্রেক্ষিতে সাময়িক বরখাস্তের আদেশ প্রত্যাহার করা হয় এবং তিনি ১/৮/০৪ তারিখে পনুরায় কাজে যোগদান করেন । সাময়িক বরখাস্ত কালীন ৩/৭/৯৯ হইতে ৩১.০৭.২০০৪ পর্যন্ত বিধি মোতাবেক তিনি সরকারী বেতনের অর্ধেক প্রাপ্য ছিলেন। কিন্ত তাহার পূর্ণ বেতন বিল করিয়া সমুদয় (১,৮৯,২৭২/২৪) টাকা উত্তোলন করা হয়। উক্ত সময়ে তাহার পূর্ণ বেতন উত্তোলনের জন্য প্রতিষ্ঠান প্রধান দায়ী। এই বিষয়ে আইনানুগ ব্যবস্থা গ্রহণের জন্য যথাযথ কর্তৃপক্ষের দৃষ্টি আকর্ষণ করা হইল।"
 
9.         In  view  of the  said  position  the College authority sought of the Government pleader. The Goverment Pleader in his legal opinion also opined to return the balance 50% of the MPO of the petitioner  since the suspension order had been withdrawn by the college authority and the authority itself  kept the said amount in its account, though not lawfully. However, the said amount was subsequently deposited in fovour of the respondent-government by treasury challan with Sonah IJank Ltd. dated 08.11.2007 (Annexure-4-A).
 
10.       In view of the above the petitioner is entitled to receive the balance  amount which was unduly kepi in the College account and are now lying in the Government Treasury. Accordingly substance in the present Rule.
 
11.       In the result, the Rule is made Absolute. The respondents are hereby directed to lake, necessary steps to facilitate towards payment of TK. 1,89,272.24 only in favour of the petitioner which he is lawfully entitled to get in accordance with law within a period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment and order.
 
There will be no order us to costs.
 
Ed.