Guidelines for determination of seniority :
Appellate Division
(Civil)
Surendra Kumar Sinha CJ
Nazmun Ara Sultana J
Syed Mahmud Hossain J
Hasan Foez Siddique J
Judgment
February 22nd, 2015.
Government of Bangladesh and others……..Petitioners
vs
Md Mozammel Haque and another…….Respondents
Circular-2013
Staff Pattern
The cwicÎ-2013 has to be followed in respect of determination of seniority of the parties involved. The findings of the High Court Division are not in conformity with the cwicÎ-2013 as regards Rbej KvVv‡gv. ………….(10)
Amatul Karim, Deputy Attorney-General, instructed by Md Gias Uddin Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record-For the Petitioners.
Md Khursid Alam Khan, Advocate, instructed by Md Nurul lslam Bhuiyan, Advocate-on-Record-For the Respondent.
Judgment
Syed Mahmud Hossain J: This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15-5-2012 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 10108 of 2011 making the Rule absolute without any order as to costs.
2. The facts leading to the filing of this civil petition for leave to appeal, in brief, are:
Writ-petitioners, Md Mozammel Haque and another, filed the writ petition before the High Court Division for direction upon the writ-respondents to pay the Government portion of salary of the writ-petitioners as Assistant Professors from the date of their promotion as Assistant Professors on 28-6-2010 in compliance with the provision of Clause-11 of the ???????? ?????? ?????????? (?????, ????, ???????? ? ??????? ?????? ??????????????) ?? ??????-??????????? ????-??????? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? ????????? ??????????, 2010 and obtained Rule Nisi in Writ Petition No. 10108 of 2011.
3. The writ-respondents contested the Rule by filing affidavit-in-opposition controverting all the material statements made in the writ petition.
4. The learned Judges of the High Court Division upon hearing the parties by the judgment and order dated 15-5-2012 made the Rule absolute without any order as to costs and directed the writ-respondents to pay the Government portion of salary with other ancillary benefits of the writ-petitioners as Assistant Professors from the date of their promotion, that is, 28-6-2010 within the 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order.
5. Feeling aggrieved the judgment and order passed by the High Court Division, the writ-respondents as the leave-petitioners have filed this civil petition for leave to appeal before this Division.
6. Ms Amatul Karim learned Deputy Attorney-General, appearing on behalf of the leave-petitioners, submit that High Court Division came to the erroneous finding that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to seniority without considering paripatra dated 24-3-2013 and, as such, the impugned judgment should be set aside.
7. Mr Khurshid Alam Khan, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, supports the impugned judgment delivered by the High Court Division.
8. We have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates, perused the impugned judgment and the materials on record.
9. The High Court Division came to a finding that MPO sheet (Annexures-K and L to I the supplementary affidavit) showed that there were as many as 9 (nine) Lecturers serving the college and that among them respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had completed 8 years satisfactory service as Lecturers from May, 2001 (the date of their enlistment in MPO) and the authority concerned, that is, the governing body of the college rightly took the decision to promote the respondents to the post of Assistant Professor from the post of Lecturer. The High Court Division further found the governing body had done no illegality in promoting the respondents and that they were entitled to get higher scale and benefits along with Government portion of salaries as Assistant Professor.
10. The aforesaid findings of the High Court Division are not in conformity with the cwicÎ-2013 as regards Rbej KvVv‡gv, (staff pattern). We are of the view that in the case in hand, the cwicÎ-2013 has to be followed in respect of determination of seniority of the parties involved in the case in hand.
Accordingly, this civil petition for leave to appeal is disposed of and the’ impugned judgment is accordingly modified in the light of the findings made in the body of the judgment.
Appellate Division
(Civil)
Surendra Kumar Sinha CJ
Nazmun Ara Sultana J
Syed Mahmud Hossain J
Hasan Foez Siddique J
Judgment
February 22nd, 2015.
Government of Bangladesh and others……..Petitioners
vs
Md Mozammel Haque and another…….Respondents
Circular-2013
Staff Pattern
The cwicÎ-2013 has to be followed in respect of determination of seniority of the parties involved. The findings of the High Court Division are not in conformity with the cwicÎ-2013 as regards Rbej KvVv‡gv. ………….(10)
Amatul Karim, Deputy Attorney-General, instructed by Md Gias Uddin Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record-For the Petitioners.
Md Khursid Alam Khan, Advocate, instructed by Md Nurul lslam Bhuiyan, Advocate-on-Record-For the Respondent.
Judgment
Syed Mahmud Hossain J: This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15-5-2012 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 10108 of 2011 making the Rule absolute without any order as to costs.
2. The facts leading to the filing of this civil petition for leave to appeal, in brief, are:
Writ-petitioners, Md Mozammel Haque and another, filed the writ petition before the High Court Division for direction upon the writ-respondents to pay the Government portion of salary of the writ-petitioners as Assistant Professors from the date of their promotion as Assistant Professors on 28-6-2010 in compliance with the provision of Clause-11 of the ???????? ?????? ?????????? (?????, ????, ???????? ? ??????? ?????? ??????????????) ?? ??????-??????????? ????-??????? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? ????????? ??????????, 2010 and obtained Rule Nisi in Writ Petition No. 10108 of 2011.
3. The writ-respondents contested the Rule by filing affidavit-in-opposition controverting all the material statements made in the writ petition.
4. The learned Judges of the High Court Division upon hearing the parties by the judgment and order dated 15-5-2012 made the Rule absolute without any order as to costs and directed the writ-respondents to pay the Government portion of salary with other ancillary benefits of the writ-petitioners as Assistant Professors from the date of their promotion, that is, 28-6-2010 within the 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order.
5. Feeling aggrieved the judgment and order passed by the High Court Division, the writ-respondents as the leave-petitioners have filed this civil petition for leave to appeal before this Division.
6. Ms Amatul Karim learned Deputy Attorney-General, appearing on behalf of the leave-petitioners, submit that High Court Division came to the erroneous finding that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to seniority without considering paripatra dated 24-3-2013 and, as such, the impugned judgment should be set aside.
7. Mr Khurshid Alam Khan, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, supports the impugned judgment delivered by the High Court Division.
8. We have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates, perused the impugned judgment and the materials on record.
9. The High Court Division came to a finding that MPO sheet (Annexures-K and L to I the supplementary affidavit) showed that there were as many as 9 (nine) Lecturers serving the college and that among them respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had completed 8 years satisfactory service as Lecturers from May, 2001 (the date of their enlistment in MPO) and the authority concerned, that is, the governing body of the college rightly took the decision to promote the respondents to the post of Assistant Professor from the post of Lecturer. The High Court Division further found the governing body had done no illegality in promoting the respondents and that they were entitled to get higher scale and benefits along with Government portion of salaries as Assistant Professor.
10. The aforesaid findings of the High Court Division are not in conformity with the cwicÎ-2013 as regards Rbej KvVv‡gv, (staff pattern). We are of the view that in the case in hand, the cwicÎ-2013 has to be followed in respect of determination of seniority of the parties involved in the case in hand.
Accordingly, this civil petition for leave to appeal is disposed of and the’ impugned judgment is accordingly modified in the light of the findings made in the body of the judgment.
