Tuesday, January 23, 2018 | ePaper

Limitation of High Court Jurisdiction

  • Print
High Court Division  :
(Special Original Jurisdict
Tariq-ul-Hakim J
AKM Shahidul Huq J
Abdus Shaheed (Md) and another ............    . Petitioner
vs
Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and Co-operatives, Bangladesh, Dhaka and others........Respondents
Judgment
April 29th, 2014
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 102(2)
Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980 (VII of 1981)
Section 4
Even if legal right or even a fundamental right is infringed still the doors of the High Court Division is closed to the petitioners under Article 102 of the Constitution. They must seek their relief in the administrative tribunal. ……..(29)
Delowar Hossain vs Government of Bangladesh, 52 DLR (AD) 120; Mojibur Rahman vs the Government of Bangladesh, 44 DLR (AD) III and  Mian Fazal Din vs The Lahore Improvement Trust, 21 DLR (SC) (1969) 225 ref.
Rokonuddin Mahmud with Mustafizur Rahman, with Safayat Sultana Rume, with Adita Afrose Hasan and Nushrat Mafiz Advocates-For the Petitioners.
Murad Reza Additional Attorney-General with Kazi Zinat Hoque, DAG with Shams-ud Doha Talukder Advocate-For the Respondent Nos.1 and 3.
Hasan Ariff with AM Aminuddin and Md Liton Ahmed Advocates-For the Respondent No.6.
Judgment
Tariq-ul-Hakim J : Rule Nisi has been issued calling upon the respondents to show cause why the Notification published under Memo No.05.132.019.00.00.041.2013-1090 dated 3-11-2013 issued by the respondent No.3 under the signature of the Respondent No.4 (Annexure A) appointing the Respondent No.6 as Chief Engineer of LGED on contractual basis for another year from 12-12-2013 or date of joining notwithstanding that he will attain his age of retirement on 11-12-2013 should not be declared to have been issued without lawful authority and of no legal effect and why the respondents should not be directed to reinstated the petitioner in his service in accordance with law and/or such other or further order or orders as to this Court may seem fit and proper.
2. It is stated that the petitioners are law abiding citizens of Bangladesh and are engaged in the service of the Republic as Additional Chief Engineer of LGED. The petitioners impugned the Notification published under Memo No.05.132.019.00.00.041.2013-1090 dated 3-11-2013 issued by the respondent No.3 Ministry under the signature of the Respondent No.4 (Annexure A) appointing the Respondent No.6 as Chief Engineer of LGED on contractual basis for another year from 12-12-2013 or date of joining notwithstanding that he will attain his age of retirement on 11-12-2013.
3. It is further stated that the then Chief Engineer of LGED Md Nurul Islam upon becoming 57 years old, went into retirement on 29-12-2009. Thereafter on the recommendation of the superior Selection Board of the Respondent No.3, Ministry, the Respondent No.6 the then Additional Chief Engineer of LGED was promoted and appointed to the post of Chief Engineer of LGED by order of the Respondent No.1 Ministry dated 14-7-2009. The Respondent No.6 joined the said post the same day.
4. It is further stated that although the Respondent No.6 did not claim to be a freedom fighter when he joined LGED first, he obtained a temporary certificate from the Ministry of Liberation War Affairs on 29-3-2009 which certified that the Respondent No. 6 had taken part in the Liberation War of 1971. Thereafter retirement age of all public servants was amended and increased to 59 years by the Public Servants (Retirement) Amendment Act, 2012 and subsequently Parliament passed Public Servants (Retirement) (Amendment) Act, 2013 and increased the retirement age of the freedom fighters to 60 years and, as such, the retirement age of the Respondent No.6 was increased to 60 years and the petitioners were also promoted to the post of Additional Chief Engineer of LGED by Notification dated 10-9-2012.
 (To be continued)

More News For this Category

In amicable act no single party can be stamped out

(From previous issue) :17. The remaining witnesses were Nasima's sister PW 2, another relation PW 3 and no such local Union Parishad Chairman, Member or leading villager was

Genuineness of official order should be established first

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction) Zinat Ara J KM Kamrul Kader J     Nurul Islam (Md) ..............Petitioner vs Anti-Corruption Commission represented by its Chairman Dhaka and others   

Only the 'drawer' is liable

High Court Division (Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction) Farah Mahbub J Mahmudul Hoque JShahidul Alam @ S Alam and another. ..........Complainant-PetitionersvsDr Jahid Hossain Prodhan and another...............Opposite-PartiesJudgmentAugust 17th, 2017Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI

In amicable act no single party can be stamped out

High Court Division (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Md Emdadul Huq JAshish Ranjan Das JJudgmentMay 11th, 2016Najim Uddin (Md) ....................Convict-Accused- Appellant vsState ..............RespondentNari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Doman Ain (VIII of 2000) Section 9(1)

Limitation of High Court Jurisdiction

(From previous issue) :5. It is further stated that during the tenure of the Respondent No. 6 as Chief Engineer of LGED, numerous allegations of corruption, bribery and dishonest

Law allows the court to pass order in ‘summary manner'

High Court Division  :(Civil Revisional Jurisdiction) Sheikh Abdul Awal JShahidul Karim JBASIC Bank Ltd     . Plaintiff-Appellant vs Sarwar Enterprise and others ......................Defendant-RespondentsJudgment June 7th, 2016 Artha Rin Adalat

Auction of mortgaged property be made first

(From previous issue) :8. The. only question that calls for consideration by us in this Writ Petition is whether· under the governing law and the decisions of the Appellate

Limitation of High Court Jurisdiction

High Court Division  :(Special Original JurisdictTariq-ul-Hakim JAKM Shahidul Huq JAbdus Shaheed (Md) and another ............    . Petitioner vs Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development

Establishing claim in suit for partition

Appellate Division (Civil) :Md Abdul Wahhab Miah JMd Imman Ali JKanchan Mallik and others................Appellantsvs Saleha Begum and others.............RespondentsJudgmentNovember 18, 2015Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908) Order VII, Rule

Quantum of seized drugs must be determined in an acceptable method

(From previous issue) :27. On the other hand, in some cases, this can also act to the benefit of the accused person. Although a person may have been in