Sunday, February 17, 2019 | ePaper

Power of absorption is not absolutely discretionary

  • Print
(From previous issue) :
11. From a perusal of the materials on record it appears emphatically that the question of absorption arid regularization of teacher and other staffs' who were appointed temporarily under the respondents had come up for decision in Writ Petition No. 8907 of 2009 and 3187 of 2010 wherein the Rules issued were made absolute with a direction upon the respondent concerned to regularize/absorb the services of the petitioners against vacant permanent post. It would be profitable to refer to the relevant paragraphs from Writ Petition No. 8907 of 2009, which reads as under:
"We have examined the materials on record and also considered the submissions of the learned Advocate of the respective parties.
12. On examination of the paragraph No.3 of the supplementary affidavit dated 19-1-2011 wherein details of the petitioners including the date of birth have been furnished. We find that except the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were below 30 years of age on the date of appointment. From Annexure-H to the said affidavit, it appears that the petitioners are serving in different posts admittedly and, as such, the alleged circular fixing the age limit is not applicable for the petitioners.
13. On examination of the Annexure-'G' series, we find that the different department including the Military-Department has relaxed the age limit in case of the employees in service and admittedly the petitioners have been rendering the services without any stigma or allegation since 1999 and they gathered experience while serving in the department and in such circumstances, the experience of the petitioners cannot he ignored."
14. In the aforesaid case it has further been. observed as follows:
"On perusal of employment notice published by Military Land and Establishments and Bangladesh Tele-communication Regulatory Commission as contained in Annexure-G series, it appears that in the said Notifications the authorities relaxed the age limit in case of departmental candidates and similarly, Bangladesh Sugar and Food Industries Corporation took the decision to give appointment to departmental experienced employees up to age of 45 years and in such circumstances, the case of petitioner No.3 can be considered. The decisions referred to above in the facts and circumstances of the present case before us are applicable.
15. The respondents have not annexed the inquiry report of the committee but from the facts stated in the affidavit-in-opposition and the submissions of the learned Advocate, it transpires that the authorities did not take into consideration the date of appointment of the petitioners No.1 and 4-16 who were admittedly appointed below 30 years of age and since then they have been serving in the department and, as such, the alleged bar of 30 years will not be applicable to those petitioners as a departmental experienced employees in service and they may be treated as permanent employees of BJMC as per approval of the concerned Ministry dated 4-7-2000 (Annexue-B-1).
16. Upon overall reappraisal of the materials on· record, we find great deal of substance in the submissions of the learned advocate for the petitioners and thereby, the petitioners are entitled to be treated as permanent employees of BJMC as per approval of the concerned Ministry dated 4-7-2000 (Annexure-B-1).
17. In the result, the Rule is made absolute without any order as to cost.
18. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioners as permanent employees of BJMC as per approval of the concerned Ministry dated 4-7-2000."
19. Again in Writ Petition No. 3187 of 2010 it has been observed as underneath:
"We have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates of respective parties and perused the application, its annexures, supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners and affidavit in opposition filed by the respondent No.6 and 8.
Admittedly, the petitioners started their career with the respondents prior to the change in policy relating to absorption.
It appears that the respondent No.2 took a decision that the employees working temporarily and on daily basis would be absorbed and regularized step by step. For felicity of reference the relevant portion of the decision is quoted below.
আলোচ্য বিষয় নং-২৪০.০৫/০৯-১০ঃ  দৈনিক ভিত্তিতে কর্মরত কর্মচারীদের নিয়মিতকরণ প্রসঙ্গে।
পেশকৃত কার্যপত্রে উল্লিখিত বিষয়টি সভায় বিস্তারিতভাবে পর্যালোচনা করা হয়্। বিজেএমসি পরিচালনা পর্ষদ সভার সিদ্ধান্ত মোতাবেক বিজেএমসিতে বর্তমানে কর্মরত ২৬ জন দৈনিক ভিত্তিক কর্মচারীদের দক্ষতা, অভিজ্ঞতা, শিক্ষাগত যোগ্যতা, বয়স ইত্যাদি এবং মৌখিক পরীক্ষা গ্রহণ করে তাদেরকে শূন্যপদে ¯'ায়ীকরণের বিষয়ে প্রতিবেদন দাখিল করার জন্য দন্ডাদেশ সূত্র নং সং¯'াপন/দৈনিক ভিত্তিক ৯৯ (অংশ-৪)/৫০৮,তারিখ ১৫-৭-২০০৯ এর মাধ্যমে ৩ সদ্য সমন্বয়ে একটি কমিটি গঠন করা হয়। কমিটি কর্তৃক গত ২-৮-২০০৯ তারিখে ২৬ জন দৈনিক ভিত্তিক কর্মচারীর ১৫ নম্বর এর মৌখিক পরীক্ষা গ্রহণ করা হয়। কমিটির প্রতিবেদনে নিম্নরূপ মতামত/সুপারিশ প্রদান করা হয় ঃ
মতামত ও সুপারিশ
১। ২৬ জন দৈনিক ভিত্তিক কর্মচারী যে যে পদে কর্মরত আছেন সকলেই স্ব-স্ব পদে দায়িত্ব পালনে যোগ্য।
২। ২৬ জন দৈনিক ভিত্তিক কর্মচারীর মধ্যে ২ জন কর্মচারীর বয়স, চাকুরী গ্রহণকালেই ৩০ বৎসর এর বেশি ছিল, তাদের বিষয়টি বিবেচনা করার সুযোগ নেই।
৩। যে সকল দৈনিক ভিত্তিক কর্মচারীর বয়স চাকুরী গ্রহণকালে ৩০ ও ৩২ (মুক্তিযোদ্ধার সন্তানের ক্ষেত্রে) বৎসর এর নীচে ছিল কিš' বর্তমানে নেই, বর্তমান অব¯'ায় তাদের বিষয়টি বিবেচনা করা সুযোগ নেই মর্মে প্রতীয়মান হলেও দীর্ঘ দিন বিজেএমসিতে কর্মরত থাকা অব¯'ায় চাকুরীর বয়স সীমা উত্তীর্ণ হয়ে গেছে বিধায় মানবিক দ"ষ্টিকোণ হতে বিচেনায় এনে তাদের সীমা উত্তীর্ণের তারিখের পূর্ব দিন হতে তাদেরকে নিয়মিত কারণের বিষয়টি বিবেচনায় আনা আনা যেতে পারে।
৪। ২০০৩ সনে পাট মন্ত্রণালয়ের অনুমোদন এর আলোকে, যে সকল দৈনিক ভিত্তিক কর্মচারীর বয়স বর্তমান ৩০ বৎসরের নীচে আছে এবং শূণ্য পদ আছে তাদের চাকুরী নিয়মিত করণের বিষয়টি বিবেচনা করা যেতে পারে।
কমিটির প্রদত্ত মতামত যে সুপারিশ সভায় বিস্তারিত ভাবে পর্যালোচনা করা হয়। বিজেএমসিতে কর্মরত যে সকল দৈনিক ভিত্তিক কর্মচারীর বয়স বর্তমানে ৩০ বৎসরের নীচে আছে এবং শূন্য পদ আছে তাদের চাকুরী নিয়মিত করণের বিষয়টি ২-৮-২০০৯ তারিখ হতে অনুমোদন করা যায় এবং বিজেএমসিতে কর্মরত যে সকল দৈনিক ভিত্তিক কর্মচারীদের বয়স বর্তমানে ৩০ বৎসরের ঊর্দ্ধে প্রচলিত বিধি বিধানের আলোকে তাদের চাকুরী নিয়মিতকরণের বিষয়টি বিবেচনার কোন সুযোগ নেই। এছাড়া মিলসমূহে বর্তমানে কর্মরত যে সকল দৈনিক ভিত্তিক কর্মচারীর বয়স ৩০ বৎসরের নীচে আছে এবং শূন্য পদ আছে বিধি মোতাবেক সাক্ষাতকার গ্রহণপূর্বক তাদের চাকুরী নিয়মিত করণের জন্য মিলসমূহকে পরামর্শ দেয়া হয়। এতদব্যতীত এখন হতে বিজেএমসি প্রধান কার্যালয়ের পূর্বানুমতি ব্যতিরেকে কোন মিলে কোন কর্মচারী ( যেমন এডহক, বদলী, দৈনিক ভিত্তিক, মৌসুম ভিত্তিক, সাময়িক নিয়োগ না দেয়ার জন্য মিলসমূহকে নির্দেশ প্রদান করা হয় বলে সভায় অভিমত ব্যক্ত করা হয়।
20. The petitioners have been working under the respondents on daily wage basis for the last several years and by this time they have crossed the age limit for being appointed in any Government service or any local body. The petitioners' service in the respective posts were to the utmost satisfaction of the authority concerned and any change in policy cannot and should not affect the terms and conditions of the service of the petitioners who have earlier been appointed when they were found to be suitable for the post in question.
21. As observed in Rabia Bashri Irene vs Bangladesh Biman 52 DLR 308, policy change cannot and should not affect the terms and conditions of those who had been appointed prior to the policy change.
22. The power of absorption, no doubt, is discretionary but is coupled with the duty not to act arbitrarily, or at the whim or caprice of any individual. There is nothing on record to indicate that for any reason whatsoever, the petitioners were not required or fit to be absorbed.
It will be wholly unjust and unfair to reject a candidate for regularization on the ground that he did not possess the minimum educational qualifications and physical fitness at the time when the candidate was selected and after taking work from the same person on the same post on which he is seeking regularization without any complaint for a long time. It will be wholly unfair to hold him ineligible for regularization at such distance of time where the employees have worked for years together in the same post and have worked in such posts without any complaint, they should not be denied regularization on the ground that they do not possess requisite minimum educational qualifications prescribed for regular appointment on that post on the day they are considered for regularization.
23. At the time of delivery of judgment Mr. Md. Jamal Hossain, the learned Advocate for the petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit praying for discharging the Rule so far as it relates to the petitioners No. 1,2, 7, 9, 13,14 & 17 for non prosecution. as the matter has been settled out of Court between the parties. Consequently, the Rule is discharged for non prosecution so far as it relates to the petitioners 1,2,7,9, 13, 14 & 17.
24. In view of the discussions made in the body of the judgment, the rest of the petitioners have made out a case for regularization of their services.
25. Accordingly, the Rule is made absolute. The  respondents are directed to absorb the petitioners against vacant permanent posts as and when vacancy arises, subject to the condition that they do not otherwise disqualify.
26. There is however, no order as to cost."
27. Thus, it is apparent from the aforesaid discussions that the issue raised in the instant Rules has already been-settled by this division in more than one occasion. Since the matter in issue has finally been resolved by this division, we find no reason to deviate ourselves from the same as we are in full agreement with the verdict rendered in the above cases.
28. In the premises we find merit in these Rules and accordingly, they are made absolute.
29. The respondents are directed to absorb the petitioners against vacant permanent post as an when the Vacancy arises, subject to the condition that they do not otherwise disqualify.
However, there would be no order at to costs.
(Concluded)

More News For this Category

Normal financial transaction do not come within the scope of any offence

Appellate Division (Criminal) Nazmun Ara Sultana J       }MASukkur     . Syed Mahmud Hossain J   } ……..Appellant                                         Md Imman Ali J                 }       vs Judgment                               }Md Zahirul Haque May

No provision for fresh limitation from final order

High Court Division (Special Original Jurisdiction)Sheikh Hassan Arif J  }  Mohitur Rahman Choudhury (Md) and Md Badruzzaman  J    } others………Petitioners                                    }                 VSJudgment                    } Md Abdul Kuddus Miah and others------April

Maintaining quota reserved for freedom fighters and their children

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction) Gobinda Chandra Tagore    J AKM Shahidul Huq    J Ekram Hossain (Md)     ................... Petitioner              VSGovernment of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry

No provision to remit interest lawfully imposed against loans

High Court Division :(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) AKM Asaduzzaman J }  AB Bank LimitedMd Iqbal Kabir J  } …….Plaintiff Appellant        vs Judgment         } Khan Enterprise and  

Defaulter would not be appointed or remain as bank director

(From previous issue) :Argument of the contending parties 6. Mr. Moudud Ahmed, the learned' Advocate for the petitioner appearing with the learned Advocate Mr. Abdullah AI-Mahmud, takes us through

Temporary employees deserve opportunity of getting permanent

Tariq-ul-Hakim J :Abu Taher Md Saifur Rahman JHassan Ahmed Khan Hassan Ali Khan and  others     Petitioners vs Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Dhaka and others .... RespondentsJudgment June 18th,

Court is legally authorized to review or modify sentence

(From previous issue) :16. Mr Monjur Kader, the learned Deputy Attorney General appearing on behalf of the state submits that PWs 2.3 and 4 who were present at the

Defaulter would not be appointed or remain as bank director

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction) Zinat Ara      JKazi  Md Ejarul Haque Akondo   J Abdul Awal Patwary Dhaka Bangladesh…………Petitioner                       VSPeople's Republic of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary Ministry of Finance

The plaintiff is at liberty to value the suit

High Court Division :       (Civil Revisional Jurisdiction) Mahmudul Hoque J  Ismail Mia. (Md).............. . Plaintiff- Petitioner                   Vs Abeda Khatun and others……Defendant- Opposite-PartiesJudgment July 10th, 2018Code of Civil Procedure (V

Court is legally authorized to review or modify sentence

High Court Division  :(Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction) Md Emdadul Huq J Md Shohrowardi J Nasir Mia (Md)     . ........ Convict-Petitioner vsState.....Opposite-PartyJudgmentMay 29th, 2018 State ..... Opposite-Party'Code of Criminal Procedure