IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

Writ Petition No. 4549 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 :

Kailash Chandra Roy

                                                  ..........Petitioner     

-Versus-

Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry

of Education, Government of People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna Dhaka and others.

                                            ……….Respondents. Mr. Md. Moinul Haider Chowdhury, Advocate

                       ………for the petitioner Mr. Md. Saiefuddin Khalid, DAG with

Ms. Fatema Rshid ,AAG

   ..for the Respondents

Heard and Judgment on: 29.08.2024

Present:

Ms. Justice Ashish Ranjan Das

&

Ms. Justice Fahmida Quader

Ashish Ranjan Das, J;

         Rule nisi was issued at the instance of the petitioner Kailash Chandra Roy in the following terms:

“Let a Rule Nisi be issued calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the respondents should not be directed to include the name of the petitioner in the Monthly Pay Order (MPO) list and give him  the  government  allowances  along  with  his  salary  with retrospective effect since the date of his obtaining NTRCA registration

2

certificate and/or pass such other or further order or orders as to this Court may seem fit and proper.”

Short fact is that the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer of English

at Chengthi Hajra Danga College, Debigonj, Panchagar (Annexure-B(2)) with effect from 27.06.2006. Other teachers of his college were enlisted into the monthly payment order while this petitioner was left out. Finally he sent a representation to the Director General of Secondary and High Education, Dhaka  on  10.12.2017  (Annexure-E).  But  the  responsible  and  competent authority as yet gave no reply rather for long sleeping over the matter. 

The learned lawyer for the petitioner MD. Mainul Haidar Chowdhury, submits that the purpose of justice will be served if the respondent no.2 the Director  General  of  Secondary  and  High  Education,  Ramna,  Dhaka  is directed  to  dispose  of  the  petitioner’s  application  (Annexure-E)  in accordance with law expeditiously and the learned Deputy Attorney General also does not oppose.

Hence,  the  Director  General  of  Secondary  and  High  Education, Ramna,  Dhaka  directed  to  positively  dispose  of  the  application  of  the petitioner (Annexure-E) dated 10.12.2017 within 30 days from the date of receipt of the judgment and order.

Accordingly, the Rule is disposed of. 

No order as to costs.

Fahmida Quader, J:

I agree.

Bashar, B.O.