Friday, October 19, 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

An accused cannot be compelled to be witness against himself

High Court Division :(Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction) M Enayetur Rahim JShahidul Karim J Kazi Md Shahed ..........Ahmed .............Accused-PetitionervsState and others     ....... Opposite-PartiesJudgmentAugust 1st, 2017Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972 Article 35(4)

Properties of principal borrower should come first for recovery of bank's dues

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction) Sheikh Hassan Arif JMd Badruzzaman JElite Iron and Steel GP Sheet Ltd and others .... Petitioners vsJudge, Artha Rin Adalat, 4th Court, Dhaka

Upholding the rule of natural justice

Appellate Division : (Civil) Md. Abdul Wahhab Miah  JMd Imman Ali   J AHM Shamsuddin Choudhury  JChairman, Rural Electrification Board at present (Bangladesh Rural electrification Board) Dhaka-----------Petitioner                            VsMaziruddin Ahmed Khan

Criminal case stands for the offence, civil suit for realisation of money

High Court Division :(Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction) Syed Md Ziaul Karim J Md Akram Hossain Chowdhury J Judgment July 2nd, 2018 Moinul Hoque Chowdhury and another.…….Accused-Petitioners                   vs State and

Claim over ownership of waqf property!

Appellate Division :(Civil) Abdul Wahhab Miah JMd Imman Ali JHasan Foez Siddique JJudgmentAugust 17th, 2017Hafizuddin (Md) ....................Appellantvs Mozaffor Mridha and others ... RespondentsBengal Waqf Act (XIll of 1934) Section 70(1)(4)

Grounds for rejection of plaint

High Court Division :(Civil Revisional Jurisdiction) Sharif Uddin Chaklader           JKhizir Ahmed Chowdhury      J Eastern Housing Ltd. ………Petitionervs Ainuddin Haydar and others……Opposite-PartiesJudgment September 3rd, 2015 Code of Civil Procedure (V

Sentence should commensurate with the gravity of crime

High Court Division :(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction) Zafar Ahmed J  Mahmudul Hasan (Md)  ........Petitioner vsState and another……….Opposite PartiesJudgment August 24th, 2017 Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881) Section 138 The

Arbitration clause of the agreement be tried first

(From previous issue) :In a case such as this we are of opinion the suit is not on the face of it barred by law. The very arguments which

Calculation of interest on decree amount

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction)Zinat Ara JAKM Zahirul Hoque JTopman Fashion WearsLimited..........PetitionervsDutch Bangla Bank Limited and others...............RespondentsJudgmentFebruary 15th, 2017Artha Rin Adalat Ain (VIII of 2003)Section 50(4)Under Section 50(4)

Principle of double jeopardy

(From previous issue) :39. In respect of these material exhibits no suggestion has been given by the defence that these materials are not belonged to the victim of the