Sunday, September 24, 2017 | ePaper

Employees are governed by Service Rules, not Organogram

  • Print
(From previous issue)
8. All on a sudden, an 'Office Order' dated 23-10-2012 was issued under the signature of the Respondent No.9, transferring /vesting his service from Dhaka South City Corporation to the North City Corporation. On 25-10-2012, the petitioner joined the post of Deputy Chief Accounts Officer of Dhaka North, City Corporation. Accordingly, an office order, dated 27-1-2013 was issued under the signature of Respondent No.8, Secretary Dhaka North City Corporation.
9. It is further stated that all on a sudden, an 'Office Order' dated 23-8-2015 was issued under the signature of the Respondent No.8 transferring the petitioner from the post of Deputy Chief Accounts Officer (Dhaka North City Corporation) to the post of 'Geographer', Town Planning Division (Dhaka North City Corporation) and accordingly, the petitioner joined in the said post on 25-8-2015.
to. The respondent No.6 filed an affidavit-in-opposition controverting the statements made in the Writ Petition, stating, inter alia, that after bifurcation of the then Dhaka City Corporation, due to retirement of the earlier Chief Accounts Officer, the petitioner was given additional charge as Chief Accounts Officer of the Dhaka North City Corporation and current charge of the Dhaka South City Corporation respectively. However, by the impugned order dated 29-3-2012, respondent No. 6 was transferred to the post of Chief Accounts Officer of Dhaka North City Corporation and Respondent No.7, was posted as Chief Accounts Officer of the Dhaka South City Corporation under deputation as per Rule 8 of the XvKv †cŠi K‡c©v‡ikb Kg©Pvix PvKzix wewagvjv, 1989.
11. On 29-3-2012, for the purpose of appointing Chief Accounts Officer in the Dhaka North City Corporation and Dhaka South City Corporation, the Government placed the service of Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 to the Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and Cooperatives. Earlier, the Chief Accounts Officer of Dhaka City Corporation retired from his service and for smooth functioning of the accounts section, the petitioner, who was at that time working as Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, was given additional charge and current charge of Dhaka North City Corporation and Dhaka South City Corporation respectively. By giving the said charges, the authority neither gave any promotion to the petitioner nor any right had accrued to the petitioner to be promoted to the said post. The petitioner sought remedy against Dhaka North City Corporation and Dhaka South City Corporation, but in the instant case, the petitioner has not served any notice upon the Dhaka North  City Corporation and Dhaka South City Corporation and, as such, the Rule issued in the said writ petition is liable to be discharged.
12. As per Rule 8 of the XvKv †cŠi K‡c©v‡ikb Kg©Pvix PvKzix wewagvjv, 1989, there is a provision for appointment on the basis of deputation and the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 have been appointed as Chief Accounts Officer of Dhaka North City Corporation and Dhaka South City Corporation respectively by complying with the said Rule and as such, there is no illegality.
13. In 1990 an organogram was approved by the Dhaka Municipal Corporation, which was approved by the Ministry of Local Government, by the said organogram, the post of Deputy Chief Accounts Officer was Created for the first time. In the said Organogram, it has been specifically provided that the Chief Accounts Officer will be appointed by deputation. But the writ petitioner has willfully suppressed this fact. After filing the writ petition, the petitioner is still functioning as the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer of Dhaka North City Corporation and by the Impugned Order, his service has not any way been disturbed and there is no reason of the petitioner to be aggrieved by the impugned Order and as such the Rule is liable to be discharged.
14. The petitioner filed an affidavit-in-reply against the Affidavit-in-Opposition filed by the respondent No.6. It is stated that as per Rule 8 of the Dhaka Pouro Corporation Employees Service Rules, 1989, the authority can transfer any employee on deputation to any post in the City Corporation and/or by complying with the said Rule. Respondent No.6 has been transferred from his earlier post of Director, Railway Audit Department to the post of Chief Accounts Officer, Dhaka North City Corporation, which is without lawful authority, since, as per Rule-8 of the Dhaka Pouro Corporation Employees Service Rules, 1989 the authority can transfer any employee to any post, subject to the Schedule of the said Service Rules -1989.
15. Item No-17 of the Schedule of the said service Rules provides that the post of Chief Accounts Officer shall be filled in either by promotion or by direct appointment. There is no scope to transfer any employee on deputation to that post i.e. the post of Chief Accounts Officer. Therefore, it is apparent that the authority posted Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 in the said post of Chief Account's Officer of Dhaka. North City Corporation and Dhaka South City Corporation respectively in violation of Item No. 17 of the Schedule of the Service Rules-1989.
16. Mr Mohammad Hedayet Hossain, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the Respondent No.1, being empowered pursuant to Section 157 of Dhaka Municipal Corporation Ordinance, 1983, enacted Dhaka Municipal Employees Service Rules, 1989 and these Service Rules of 1989 was no way detrimental to the service condition of the petitioner and the said Service Rules of 1989 was being applied as governing law with regard to the service of the petitioner. According to Item No. 17 of the Schedule of Dhaka Municipal Employees Services Rules, 1989, the post of Chief Accounts Officer was to be filled in either by direct recruitment or by promotion. He further submits that on 1-12-2011 the Dhaka City Corporation was bifurcated as 'Dhaka South City Corporation' and 'Dhaka North City Corporation' by Local Government (City Corporation) (Amendment) Act-2011.
 (To be continued)

More News For this Category

English language in legal fraternity-An increasing demand of global aspects

Farhad Uddin Ahmed Bhuiyan :It is admittedly true enough that the influence of English Language in legal profession has got its limit crossed throughout the centuries in Bangladesh and

Debate on Constitutional Supremacy and Parliamentary Supremacy

Md. Shamsul Arefin Arif :Two types of supremacy are found in the constitutional systems in different countries of the world. One is Parliamentary Supremacy and another  is  Constitutional Supremacy.

Suspension order be period specific, subject to proceedings pending

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction) Naima Haider J Abu Taher Md Saifur Rahman JSalma Begum ......Petitioner vs Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary by the Secretariat, Dhaka

Right to compensation is not unconditional

(From previous issue) :"51. Improvements made by bonafide holders under defective titles-When the transferee of immovable property makes any improvement on the property, believing in good faith that he

Conviction can be based even on a single complete and self-contained testimony

Appellate Division :(Criminal) Surendra Kumar Sinha CJ Syed Mahmud Hossain JMirza Hussain Haider JJharu and another. ... ..................................Appellants vsState ... RespondentJudgment November 15th, 2016 Evidence Act (I of 1872)

Circumstances leading to presumed delivery of letters, notice or summon

(From previous issue) :43. In the case of Md Kamal Uddin @ Md Kamal Ahmed vs Md Mezbah Uddin reported in XI ADC 2014, it is held that:- "A

16th Amendment Case : A Judgment on Supremacy

Barrister M Qaium :Appellate Division by its historic judgment on July 3rd 2017 upheld the judgment of the High Court Division dated 05.05.2016 striking down the 16th Amendment of

Right to compensation is not unconditional

High Court Division :(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) Sheikh Abdul Awal J Shahidul Karim JHamidur Rahman and others     Petitioner vs Abdul Hashim and ors .... ......... Opposite Parties Judgment July

Circumstances leading to presumed delivery of letters, notice or summon

(From previous issue) :21. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that after the amendment by Act No. iii of 2006 according to Section l41(c) of the Act no

Temple manager can't transfer properties in any manner

High Court Division :(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)Borhanuddin J Md Ashraful Kamal JDolan Tripati alias ............Dulal TripativsGobinda Jiew and Mohaprobhu Jiew  Diety represented by Sree Bimalendu Das and others............ RespondentsJudgmentFebruary 8th,