IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

Writ Petition No. 5640 of 2018.

IN THE MATTER OF:

An application under Article 102 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh.

-And-

IN THE MATTER OF :

Md. Rafiqul Islam and others

……Petitioners.

-Versus-

Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration and others.

………….Respondents.

Mr. S.M. Quamrul Hasan with

Ms. Rabeya Khanom, Advocates

…For the petitioners. Mr. Tirtha Salil Pal, Advocate

...For the respondent No.4 Mr. Sk. Shaifuzzaman, DAG with

Ms. Rehana Sultana, AAG and

Mr. Md. Salim Azad, AAG and

Mr. Md. Samiul Alam Sarkar, AAG and

Ms. Zulfia Akhter, AAGs

…..For the respondents.

Present:

Mr. Justice K.M. Kamrul Kader

&

Mr. Justice Mohammad Showkat Ali Chowdhury

Heard On : 22.09.2021 & 13.07.2023

And

Judgment On : 01.11.2023.

K.M. Kamrul Kader, J:

On an application preferred by the petitioner under Article 102 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, this Rule Nisi was issued 12.04.2018, in the following terms:

“Let a Rule Nisi be issued calling upon the respondents to

show cause as to why the impugned letter dated 30.05.2013

under Memo No.05.159.015.45.00.008. 2000-185 (Annexure-E) and letter dated 27.11.2016 under Memo No.05.00.0000. 159.00.008.2000 (Angsha-1)-408 (Annexure- G) issued by the Ministry of Public Administration, respondent No.1 under signature of its Deputy Secretary, Zaheda Parvin denying to absorb the service of the petitioners under the revenue budget discriminating with the other posts of the same project namely b¡e¡ ü¡ÙÛ¡ Lj­fÔ­„l p¡¢hÑL LjÑL¡­äl Eæue (1j fh-Ñ50 ¢V) should not be declared to have

passed without lawful authority and is of no legal effect and

why they should not be directed to absorb the petitioners

under the revenue budget with continuity of service and

other benefits and/or pass such other or further order of

orders as to this Court may seem fit and proper.”

The averments figured in the writ petition, in support of the Rule, in short is that the petitioners were appointed in a project namely "থান া কমে ে র সািবÑL কমকাে র উ য়ন(১ ম পব ৫০ )" as Driver and they were joined in the said post on 01.06.1994 and 26.06.1995 respectively and after completion of said project the petitioners were transferred to a project namely Essential Service Package, ESP and lastly, they were transferred to Community Clinic Project, under the respondent No.6 and since the date of transfer the petitioners discharging their duties with full satisfaction to the authority concerned without any objection from any corner. It is stated that, after completion of the project the respondent No.5 requested the respondent No.3 to absorb the petitioners and 7 other posts under the revenue budget and the respondent No.3 requested the Secretary, Ministry of Establishment respondent No.1, to absorb the 10 (ten) posts of the concluded project along

with the petitioners vide letter dated 30.04.2000 under memo No. িড.ও বা- ৩/থানা-৭/৯৯/০৬. It is further stated that the Ministry of Establishment, approved 05(five) posts of Secretary and M.L.S.S. vide letter dated 21.06.2000 under memo No. সম/ ম ৫(২)-৮/২০০-১১২ under signature of its Senior Assignment Officer excluding the post of the petitioners without giving any reasons and the same was communicated to the respondent No.5 vide letter 02.07.2000 under memo No. াপকম/ বা-৩/থানা-৭/৯৯/৪৭২ and the respondent No.5 was keep silent to further correspondence about the petitioners. The Ministry of Health-respondent No.3, again requested the Ministry of Public Administration, respondent No.1 to absorb the petitioners under the revenue budget vide letter dated 17.04.2013 under memo No. 45.174.014.02.00.002.2013-123. The respondent No.1 vide letter dated 30.05.2013 under memo No.05.159.015.45.00.008.2000-185 under the signature of the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration denied the said request stating that there is no