Bangladesh Rural Development Board Ordinance [LIII of 1982] Case Reference

Bangladesh Rural Development Board Ordinance [LIII of 1982]

Section 25(c)- The writ petitioner ceased to be a government servant at the very moment the Integrated Rural Development Program (IRDP) was dissolved for, the writ petitioner was appointed on purely temporary and ad- hoc basis for this particular programme and there is no government order showing that the writ petitioner was retained in other government service even after dissolution of IRDP. Bangladesh Rural Development Board (BRDB), admittedly, is government autonomous organization a non- and the writ petitioner being the employee of this non-government organization is not entitled to get the benefit of F.R.22(a)(i) which is applicable to government employees only.

The Appellate Division has considered the submissions of the learned Advocates of both the sides and examined the appointment letter of the writ petitioner-the annexure-A and other relevant papers. This very appointment letter of the writ petitioner shows that the writ petitioner was appointed temporarily on an ad-hoc basis for a particular programme of the government. One of the conditions set forth in this appointment letter was that the appointment did not entitle the writ petitioner to claim for regular or permanent absorption or seniority. The condition No. 6 of this appointment letter shows also that the post in which the writ petitioner was appointed was temporary and might be abolished, retrenched or redesigned by IRDP at any time. The writ petitioner though continued in his service under IRDP for several years and also got promotions, but the writ petitioner could not produce anything before the court to show that his post was made permanent and his service also was ever made permanent. The writ petitioner, admittedly, was appointed on ad-hoc basis for a particular programme of the government, namely, Integrated Rural Development Programme and this programme stood dissolved upon establishment of the BRDB. If the petitioner and other employees like the writ petitioner had not been absorbed in BRDB they would have stood dismissed or terminated from service with the abolishment of IRDP. So the writ petitioner's claim that he still remains a government employee-is not acceptable at all. As per section 25(c) of Bangladesh Rural Development Board Ordinance, 1982 the writ petitioner and other employees of IRDP stood transferred/ absorbed in BRDB as BRDB's employees and the writ petitioner has accepted this and has been serving as such for several years. The High Court Division's findings that the service of the writ petitioners and other employees of IRDP have not been absorbed in BRDB; rather the writ petitioner and those other employees have been serving under BRDB as government servant-are not correct and not acceptable. The Appellate Division finds that the writ petitioner ceased to be a government servant at the very moment the IRDP was dissolved for, the writ petitioner was appointed on purely temporary and adhoc basis for this particular programme and there is no government order showing that the writ petitioner was retained in other government service even after dissolution of IRDP. BRDB, admittedly, is a non government autonomous organization and the writ petitioner being the employee of this non-government organization is not entitled to get the benefit of F.R. 22(a)(i) which is applicable to government employees only. So the impugned order cancelling the benefits given to the petitioner as per F.R. 22(a)(i) has not been illegal at all. Evidently, the impugned judgment of the High Court Division is liable to be set aside. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Bangladesh Rural Development Board Vs. Mohammad Shahjahan and others (Civil) 17 ALR (AD) 69-72