GOVERNMENT OF BANGLADESH VS. NURUL HAQUE MIAH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF BANGLADESH VS. NURUL HAQUE MIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 1 filed Case No. 218 of 1991 before the Administrative Tribunal, Dhaka and the same was dismissed on 12-12-95 Against the said judgment and order respondent No. 1 filed Appeal No. 181 of 1995 before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka and the same was allowed after setting aside the judgment and order of the Administrative Tribunal on 24-6-96. Government of Bangladesh and the Secretary, Internal Resources Division, Ex-Officio Chairman of National Board of Revenue are seeking leave to appeal from the impugned judgment of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal.

(2.) Respondent No. 1 filed the aforesaid case praying for three declarations namely, (1) declaration that he was entitled to get ante-dated seniority as Assistant Commissioner of Taxes with effect from 5-8-74 and as Deputy Commissioner of Taxes with effect from 31-10-77 above respondent No. 2 Mr. Anwaruddin Ahmed, (2) declaration that he was entitled to get promotions with effect from the dates mentioned above and for correction of gradation list accordingly and also (3) a further declaration that the order passed by petitioner No. 2 the Secretary. Internal Resources Division and Ex officio Chairman, National Board of Revenue vide his Memo No. 3(27) Admin 3/76-453 dated 29-7- 1991 AD was illegal and without jurisdiction.

(3.) The case of respondent No. 1 is that, he joined the service as Agricultural Income Tax Officer, Cadre-II on 7-10-63.After the amalgamation of the Agricultural Income Tax Department with General Income Tax Department he was absorbed as an Extra Assistant Commissioner of Taxes on 1-7-76. At that time seniority was not determined. In the gradation list prepared on 24-1-85 respondent No. 1 was shown at serial No. 2 while respondent No. 2 Mr. Anwaruddin Ahmed was shown at Serial No. 4. Respondent No. 2 joined the non-gazetted post on 10-12-1945 and he was promoted to the post of Grade-II on 17-4-65. Thereafter respondent No. 2 was promoted to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Taxes on 6-6-77 and at that time he was allowed to ante-dated seniority with effect from 5-8-74. Respondent No. 1 passed the departmental examination of Taxes Officer in 1979 and submitted representation for promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Taxes. His representation was forwarded to Bangladesh Public Service Commission for their views. The Commission after considering the cases recommended on 3-12-80 promotion of respondent No. 1 as Assistant Commissioner of Taxes. At that time one of his colleagues Mr. SK Safar Ali filed Writ Petition No. 911 of 1980 before the High Court Division claiming his seniority and, as such, the promotion of respondent No. 1 was kept in abeyance. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Taxes with effect from 7-7-82 by the order of the National Board of Revenue. In the meanwhile respondent No. 2 was promoted to the post of Deputy Commissioner of Taxes with effect from 31-10-77. Respondent No. 1 submitted a representation on 2-1-90 to the National Board of Revenue for giving him seniority over respondent No. 2 who was junior to him in the gradation list published in 1995 with effect from 5- 8-74 in the post of Assistant Commissioner of Taxes and from 31-10-77 in the post of Deputy Commissioner of Taxes. The National Board of Revenue by its memo dated 25-3-90 agreeing on principle to consider the case of respondent No. 1 sent it to the Public Service Commission for their opinion The Public Service Commission recommended that respondent No. 1 could be given ante-dated seniority as prayed for. Thereafter, the National Board of Revenue on 5-8-90 sought opinion from the Ministry of Establishment which in turn informed the National Board of Revenue by its Memo dated 30-9-90 that respondent No. 1 was entitled to ante-dated seniority in the post of Assistant Commissioner of Taxes with effect from 5-8-74 and in the post of Deputy Commissioner of Taxes with effect from 31-10-77 over his junior respondent No. 2. Thereafter, the National Board of Revenue again on some irrelevant considerations referred the matter to the Ministry of Establishment. Subsequently, the Ministry of Establishment under its Memo dated 28-2-91 informed the National Board of Revenue that when respondent No. 2 a junior to respondent No. 1 was given ante-dated seniority in the cadre respondent No. 1 was entitled to get the same privilege. Even thereafter the National Board of Revenue refused to give ante dated seniority to respondent No. 1. Hence the Administrative Tribunal case was filed by respondent No. 1 seeking the aforesaid reliefs.