(From previous issue) :
He further submits that respondent Nos. 6 and 7 have been trying to frustrate the process of payment of his said dues for the period from 3-7-1997 to 1-8-2004 along with interest at the bank rate upto the date of payment thereof and thereby sought to render the order dated 25-2-2007 (Annexure-E) immigrating with malafide intention. Conversely, Mr AHM Mushfiqur
Rahman, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 7 by filing affidavit-in-opposition submits that the said respondent on receipt of the memo dated 22-10-2007 issued by the Assistant Secretary, Ministry of Education had duly complied with the direction by depositing the said amount of money in favour of the government in local treasury (Sonali Bank Ltd.) dated 8-11-2007 (Annexure4(a) and that it was duly communicated to the respondent No.2 vide memo dated 9-1-2008 (Annexure-5) stating, inter alia,-
“?????????? ???????? ???? ??????????? ???? ??? ?????? ??????? ????? ??? ??????? (??????) ???? ??? ???????? ????? ???????? ?????? ? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ????????? ???????? ?????????? ?-?-?? ?????? ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ??????? ?????? ???????? ???? ????? ????? ???????????? ???? ????? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ??% ???? ?????? ??? ??? ????????? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ????? ?????????? ???? ??? ???? ??????????? ????????? ??????? ??? ????????? ?????? ????? ???? ??????? ?,??,???/?? ???? ?-??-???? ?????? ???????? ??????? ??????? ??? ?????? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ???????? ???? ???”
7. Admittedly, bringing some allegations the petitioner was suspended temporality from his respective post on 11-7-1999. Challenging which he instituted Other Class Suit No. 80 of 1999. Subsequently, the Governing Body took decision to withdraw the suspension order. Consequently, the suspension order was withdrawn and accordingly the petitioner also withdrew the said suit and joined in the respective post and while in suspention he drew 50% of his subsistence allowance. The balance 50% amounting to Taka 1,89,272.24 was kept in account of the College authority without any legal basis. The said act of the College authority was detected during the course of audit 26-12-2006 (Annexure-E), wherein it was opined-
“???? ??? ???????? ????, ??? ??????? (??????) ?? ???????? ?????? ? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ????????? ???????? ?????????? ?-?-?? ?????? ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ???????? ??/?? ?? ????? ????? ????????? ????? ?????????? ??? ????? ??????? ?????????? ?????? ????????? ???? ?????????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?-?-?? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ??????? ????? ?-?-?? ???? ??-?-?? ??????? ???? ??????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ????? (?,??,???/?? ???? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ????? ???? ????????? ???? ?????????? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ??????? ???????? ??????? ???? ????? ??????????? ?????? ?????? ??? ????”
8. In view of the said position the College authority sought opinion of the Government Pleader. The Government Pleader in his legal opinion also opined to return the balance 50% of the MPO of the petitioner since the suspension order had been withdrawn by the College authority and the authority itself kept the said amount in its account, though not lawfully. However, the said amount was subsequently deposited in favour of the respondent-government by treasury challan with Sonali Bank Ltd. dated 8-11-2007 (Annexure-4-A).
9. In view of the above the petitioner is entitled to receive the balance amount which was unduly kept in the College account and are now lying in the Government Treasury. Accordingly, we find substance in the present Rule.
10. In the result, the Rule is made absolute. The respondents are hereby directed to take necessary steps to facilitate towards payment of Taka 1,82,272.24 only in favour of the petitioner which he is lawfully entitled to get in accordance with law within a period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment and order.
There will be no order as to costs.
(Concluded)
He further submits that respondent Nos. 6 and 7 have been trying to frustrate the process of payment of his said dues for the period from 3-7-1997 to 1-8-2004 along with interest at the bank rate upto the date of payment thereof and thereby sought to render the order dated 25-2-2007 (Annexure-E) immigrating with malafide intention. Conversely, Mr AHM Mushfiqur
Rahman, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 7 by filing affidavit-in-opposition submits that the said respondent on receipt of the memo dated 22-10-2007 issued by the Assistant Secretary, Ministry of Education had duly complied with the direction by depositing the said amount of money in favour of the government in local treasury (Sonali Bank Ltd.) dated 8-11-2007 (Annexure4(a) and that it was duly communicated to the respondent No.2 vide memo dated 9-1-2008 (Annexure-5) stating, inter alia,-
“?????????? ???????? ???? ??????????? ???? ??? ?????? ??????? ????? ??? ??????? (??????) ???? ??? ???????? ????? ???????? ?????? ? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ????????? ???????? ?????????? ?-?-?? ?????? ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ??????? ?????? ???????? ???? ????? ????? ???????????? ???? ????? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ??% ???? ?????? ??? ??? ????????? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ????? ?????????? ???? ??? ???? ??????????? ????????? ??????? ??? ????????? ?????? ????? ???? ??????? ?,??,???/?? ???? ?-??-???? ?????? ???????? ??????? ??????? ??? ?????? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ???????? ???? ???”
7. Admittedly, bringing some allegations the petitioner was suspended temporality from his respective post on 11-7-1999. Challenging which he instituted Other Class Suit No. 80 of 1999. Subsequently, the Governing Body took decision to withdraw the suspension order. Consequently, the suspension order was withdrawn and accordingly the petitioner also withdrew the said suit and joined in the respective post and while in suspention he drew 50% of his subsistence allowance. The balance 50% amounting to Taka 1,89,272.24 was kept in account of the College authority without any legal basis. The said act of the College authority was detected during the course of audit 26-12-2006 (Annexure-E), wherein it was opined-
“???? ??? ???????? ????, ??? ??????? (??????) ?? ???????? ?????? ? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ????????? ???????? ?????????? ?-?-?? ?????? ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ???????? ??/?? ?? ????? ????? ????????? ????? ?????????? ??? ????? ??????? ?????????? ?????? ????????? ???? ?????????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?-?-?? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ??????? ????? ?-?-?? ???? ??-?-?? ??????? ???? ??????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ????? (?,??,???/?? ???? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ????? ???? ????????? ???? ?????????? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ??????? ???????? ??????? ???? ????? ??????????? ?????? ?????? ??? ????”
8. In view of the said position the College authority sought opinion of the Government Pleader. The Government Pleader in his legal opinion also opined to return the balance 50% of the MPO of the petitioner since the suspension order had been withdrawn by the College authority and the authority itself kept the said amount in its account, though not lawfully. However, the said amount was subsequently deposited in favour of the respondent-government by treasury challan with Sonali Bank Ltd. dated 8-11-2007 (Annexure-4-A).
9. In view of the above the petitioner is entitled to receive the balance amount which was unduly kept in the College account and are now lying in the Government Treasury. Accordingly, we find substance in the present Rule.
10. In the result, the Rule is made absolute. The respondents are hereby directed to take necessary steps to facilitate towards payment of Taka 1,82,272.24 only in favour of the petitioner which he is lawfully entitled to get in accordance with law within a period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment and order.
There will be no order as to costs.
(Concluded)
