Sunday, November 19, 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

Colorable exercise of power unlawful

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction) Md Rezaul Haque JMd Khurshid AlamSarkar JJudgment July 27th, 2016 Mostafiz Khan (Md) ..........PetitionervsBangladesh and others.......Respondents Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972 Article 102(2) It

Right of co-sharer not deniable

Appellate Division :(Civil) Md Abdul Wahhab Miah JMd Nizamul Haq JJudgmentJanuary 3rd, 2017Masum Ali (Md) and others      ............. Petitioners vsLaynur Begum and others. ............RespondentsState Acquisition & Tenancy

Misuses of the privileges of bail

High Court Division  :(Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction) M Enayetur Rahim J Shahidul Karim JAbdus Salam ... Petitioner vsState and another ......... ......... Opposite PartiesJudgmentMay 24th, 2017Anti-Corruption Commission Act (V of

Imposition of penalty

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction) Syed Refaat Ahmed J  Md Akram HossainChowdhury JEastern  Cement Industries Ltd .............................................Petitioner vs Customs, Excise and VAT, Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka and another............................. RespondentsJudgment

Trial process to continue when there is a prima-facie case

High Court Division :(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction) Syed Md Ziaul Karim J Ashish Ranjan Das JMaulana Abdul Malek  Miah...... Accused-Petitioner vsState.................. Opposite-PartyJudgmentJune 18th, 2014Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898)

Suspension order must specify time duration

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction) Naima Haider JAbu Taher Md SaifurRahman J Salma Begum ............... Petitioner vsGovernment of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary by the Secretariat, Dhaka and 

Management of Waqf estate

(From previous issue) :The learned Advocate further submits that since the registered deed dated 10-3-2004 as well as late Jamaluddin Khan's letter dated 20-12-2015 appointing the petitioner' Mutawalli before'

PSI's CRF certificate can't be basis of value assessment

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction) Syed Md Ziaul Karim J Sheikh Md Zakir Hossain J Shiromoni......PetitionerVsCommissioner of Customs and 3 anothers Respondents ................Judgment     January 14th, 2016 Pre-Shipment

Impartiality and fairness stand for natural justice

(From previous issue) :21. It is clear that the Government respondent always treated the land as "Kha" Schedule land but when the Act No. 23 of 2011 came into

Management of Waqf estate

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction)Tariq ul Hakim J Md Faruque (M Faruque) JJudgment December 14th, 2016Abdullah Md Ehtesham  (Md) ...............Petitioner vs Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs, People's Republic