IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION
(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
Writ Petition No. 7211 of 2021.
IN THE MATTER OF:
An application under Article 102 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh.
-And-
IN THE MATTER OF : Tapos Chandra Ray and others
……Petitioners. -Versus-
Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs and others.
………….Respondents.
Mr. Mohammad Bakir Uddin Bhuiyan, Adv.
…For the petitioners.
Mr. Sk. Shaifuzzaman, DAG with
Mrs. Rehana Sultana, AAG with
Mr. Md. Salim Azad, AAG and
Mr. Ashique Rubaiat, AAG and
Ms. Zulfia Akhter, AAG
…..For the respondents.
Present:
Mr. Justice K.M. Kamrul Kader
&
Mr. Justice Mohammad Showkat Ali Chowdhury
Heard On : 08.12.2022, 15.06.2023, & 20.07.2023 23.11.2021
And
Judgment On : 30.08.2023
K.M. Kamrul Kader, J:
On an application preferred by the petitioners under Article 102
of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, this Rule Nisi was issued on 14.09.2021, in the following terms:
1
“Let a Rule Nisi be issued calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why failure of the respondents to discharge their legal obligation in regularizing the services of the petitioners on permanent basis following the provisions of Rule 6(3)(Ka) of the B¿¹SÑ¡¢aL Af l¡d V¡ÊCh¤eÉ¡m (pq¡uL LjÑLaÑ¡ J LjÑQ¡l£) ¢eu¡N ¢h¢dj¡m¡, 2014 and the discriminatory and irrational treatment towards the petitioners in respect
of regularization of their designated services in International Crimes Tribunal, Bangladesh on permanent basis with arrear salary and all other attendant service benefits with effect from the date of entitlements should not be declared to be without any lawful authority and is of no legal effect and as to why
the respondents should not be directed to regularize
the designated services of the petitioners in International Crimes Tribunal, Bangladesh on permanent basis with arrear salary and all other attendant service benefits from the date of their entitlements within a stipulated time and/or pass such
other or further order of orders as to this Court may
seem fit and proper.”
Facts relevant for disposal of the Rule are that for the purpose of
proper functioning of The International Crimes Tribunal of Bangladesh (herein after referred to as ICT of Bangladesh), the Ministry of Finance created and approved 83 (Eighty-three) posts by two sanction letters as contained in Memo No. 07.155.015.10.05.009.2010-502 dated 08-10- 2012 and Memo No. 07.155.015.10.05.009.2010-530 dated 01-11-2012. It is also stated that the office of the respondent No.1, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs had given sanction for creation of those 83 (eighty-three) posts of International Crimes Tribunal, Bangladesh by sanction letters as contained in Memo No. 10.00.0000.128.015.004.2012-1241 dated 06-12-2012 and Memo No. 10.00.0000.128.015.004.2012-244 dated 17-02-2013. Thereafter, the International Crimes Tribunal, Bangladesh on 11-09-2014 published a Notice for appointment in those 83 posts as contained in Memo No. 10.22.0000.000.11.001.14.1 dated 10-09-2014. In response to the said notice for appointment, these petitioners submitted their respective applications seeking appointment and eventually they became qualified to get appointment and thereafter, the respondent No.5, International Crimes Tribunal, Bangladesh issued appointment letters to the petitioners on various dates. Upon receiving the appointment letters, the petitioners joined their respective posts on several dates and since 2014, the regularization of the aforementioned posts of the petitioners have been extended on several times on temporary basis of their satisfactory performance in their respective services and the extension orders are contained in Memo No. 10.00.0000.128.015.004.2012-596 dated 05-08- 2014, Memo No. 10.00.0000.128.015.004.2012-1176 dated 27-12-2015, Memo No. 10.00.0000.128.015.04.12 (Part)-580 dated 13-11-2018 and Memo No. 07.155.020.10.05.009.2010 (Part-1)-733 dated 12-12-2019. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted a joint application on 12-07-218 to the respondent No.6 requesting him to take steps to regularize the designated services of the petitioners on permanent basis on following the provisions of Rule, 6 of B¿¹SÑ¡¢aL Afl¡d VÊ¡Che¤É¡m (pq¡uL LjÑLa¡Ñ J LjÑQ¡l£) ¢eu¡N ¢h¢dj¡m¡, 2014. Thereafter, respondent No.6, Registrar of the
No.1, Secretary (Law and Justice Division), Ministry of Law, Justice
and Parliamentary Affairs requesting him to regularize the services of
these petitioners, which are contained in Memo No. Anto.Opo.Tri- 1/434/2018 dated 12.07.2018, Memo No. Anto.Opo.Tri-1/658/218 dated 30.10.2018, Memo No. Anto.OPo. Tri-1/108/2019 dated 17.02.2019 and
Memo No. Anto.Opo.Tri-1/205/2019 dated 01.04.2019. It is also stated
that as per the forwarding letters of the respondent No.6, office of the respondent No.1 sent several forwarding and reminders to the office of
the respondent No.3, Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration with
request to regularize the designated services of the petitioners and the aforesaid forwarding letters are contained in Memo No. 10.00.0000.128.015.004.12 (Part)-197 dated 21.04.2019 and Memo No. 10.00.0000.128.015.004.12 (Part)-335 dated 23.07.2019. It is further
stated that one Mr. Nurul Haque, the Deputy Secretary (pJhÉ), Section -
5 of the Ministry of Public Administration vide Memo No. 05.00.0000.154.15.016.11.131 dated 27.08.2019 requested the respondent No.1 to communicate with the Ministry of Finance for
deleting the condition “(L) fÙй¡¢ha fc …m¡ pÇfZ§Ñ AÙÛ¡u£i ¡h 01(HL) hRll SeÉ
pª¢Sa qhz ah fÐu¡Sel ¢e¢lr flhaÑ£a fnСp¢eL j¿»Z¡mu fÙй¡h, SefÐn¡pe j¿»Z¡mu
Hhw AbÑ ¢hi¡Nl pÇj¢al ¢i¢ša fc…m¡l pªSel ®ju¡c hª¢Ü Ll¡ k¡hz (M) pª¢Sa fc…m¡l ®ju¡c ®no Abh¡ B¿¹S¡Ñ¢aL Afl¡d VÊ¡Ch¤Éem pj§ql LkœÑ²j pÇfæ (k¡q¡ BN
OV) ®no a¡vr¢ZLi¡h ¢hm¤ç qh” which imposed by the Ministry of Finance
and thereafter, Law and Justice Division of the Ministry of Law, Justice
and Parliamentary Affairs vide Memo No. 10.00.0000.128.015.004.12
(Part)-567 dated 17.11.2019 sent a representation and thereby requested
the Ministry of Finance to delete the condition No.“Ka” and “Kha” of
the letter contained in Memo No. 07.155.015.10.05.009.2010-502 dated
08.10.2012 (Annexure-A) and make the designated services of the
petitioners permanent, but till date there is no response from the
Ministry of Finance.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the failure of the
respondents the petitioners finding no other alternative and efficacious
remedy preferred this instant Writ Petition before this Court and
obtained the present Rule.
Mr. Mohammad Bakir Uddin Bhuiyan, learned Advocate
appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that as per provision of
Rule 6(3)(Ka) of B¿¹SÑ¡¢aL Afl¡d VÊ¡Ch¤eÉ¡m (pq¡uL LjÑLaÑ¡ J LjÑQ¡l£) ¢eu¡N ¢h¢dj¡m¡, 2014 services of an officer/employee shall be regularized on
permanent basis after successful completion of his/her probation period
subject to fulfillment of condition stipulated in Rule-6(4) and the
petitioners have successfully completed their probation period in the
year-2016 and they have fulfilled the condition as stipulated in Rule
6(4) of B¿¹SÑ¡¢aL Afl¡d VÊ¡Che¤É¡m (pq¡uL LjÑLaÑ¡ J LjÑQ¡l£) ¢eu¡N ¢h¢dj¡m¡, 2014,
but the respondents have not yet taken any step to regularize the
designated services of the petitioners on permanent basis. He also
submits that several staffs of the International Crimes Tribunal,
Bangladesh have been regularized in different times and they have been
transferred to the equivalent posts in various Districts Courts, which
generates legitimate expectation in minds of other staffs of the International Crimes Tribunal, Bangladesh to be regularized on permanent basis. The aforesaid order are contained in Notification Nos. 317 A dated 27-10-2015 and 216 J dated 14-10-2020, and in Office Order Nos. 201/2016(A&C) dated 14-07-2016 and 46 (A&C)/2020/(A&C) dated 27-01-2020. He again argued that the Cabinet Division of the Government through an Office Order as contained in Memo No.MoPoBI/Ko:Bi:Sha:/KoPoGo-11/2001-2011 dated 03-05-2003 formulated a Guideline regarding regularization of designated services of employees appointed on temporary basis and in that Guideline it was suggested that services of temporary employees can be regularized on permanent basis after 05(five) years of their regular service on temporary basis. But in the instant case in hand, it is evident that the petitioners have been performing crucial duties for over 08 years on temporary basis and the respondents have not yet regularized the designated services of the petitioners on permanent basis which is a glaring violation of their fundamental rights to be treated in accordance with law and shall get equal opportunity in public employment without any discrimination as guaranteed under the Constitution. Mr. Bhuiyan also submits that as the petitioners are in service of the International Crimes Tribunal, Bangladesh, their services can be considered as similar as to the service of the employees of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh and in similar and identical matters, the Hon’ble Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh in the cases of Government of Bangladesh-Vs.- Md. Mosharraf Hossain and others, reported in 71 DLR (AD)4, (Para-13 &14) and also in the case of Bangladesh Vs Santosh Kumar Saha, reported in 21 BLC(AD) 94 (Para-146) held that, the High Court Division can entertain writ petition relating to question of service matter when the matter relates to the discrimination among the employees and as such, the instant writ petition in maintainable. Mr. Bhuiyan by filling a supplementary affidavit also submits that the Investigating Agency has already confirmed their manpower of International Crimes Tribunal, Dhaka vide Memo No.44.09.0000.0001.11.036.22.535 dated 07.03.2022 as evident Annexure-R to the supplementary affidavit. There is a set organogram of the posts of International Crimes Tribunal, Dhaka and ICT, Dhaka gave appointment of 45(forty five) employees. The petitioners have legitimate expectations to be regularized on permanent basis in their services and as such, the respondents are required by law to regularize the service of the petitioners on permanent basis without any further intimation and delay, but the respondents have failed to do so and as such, he prays for a direction upon the respondents to regularize the designated service of the petitioners in International Crimes Tribunal, Bangladesh on permanent basis with arrear salary and all other attendant service benefits from the date of their entitlements.
Mr. Sk. Shaifuzzaman, learned Deputy Attorney General with Mr. Ashique Rubaiat, learned Assistant Attorney General appearing on behalf of the respondents by filling an affidavit-in-opposition and submits that in order to make the 83 temporary posts permanent, the International Crime Tribunal sent letters to the Secretary, Ministry of
Law and Justice Division vide Memo Nos. আ ঃ অপঃ াইঃ-১/৪৩৪/২০১৮ dated 12.07.2018, আ ঃ অপঃ াইঃ- ৬৫৮/২০১৮ dated 30.10.2018 and আ ঃ অপঃ াইঃ-3/30/203 dated 17/2/2019. Law and Justice Division in the light
of those letters requested the Ministry of Public Administration to make
those 83 posts permanent vide Memo Nos.10.00.0000.128.15.004 (Awn)12-197 dated 21.04.2019 and 10.০০.০০০০.১২৮.১৫.০০৪ (অংশ)-৩৩৫ dated 23.07.2019. In reply to that request, the Ministry of Public Administration informed to the Law and Justice Division vide Memo No.05.00.0000.154.15.016.11.131 dated 27.08.2019 that as per conditions given by the Finance Division, there is no option to make the proposed posts permanent and suggested to communicate with Finance Division. On such situation, Law and Justice Division Vide Memo No ১০.০০.০০০০.১২৮.১৫.০০৪.১২(অংশ)-৫৬৭ dated 17.11.2019 requested the Finance Division to take necessary steps to make those posts permanent
by withdrawing conditions given in the approval letter's ‘Ka' and Kha’ conditions. The said approval letter was sent vide Memo No.07. 155.015.10.15.009.2010-502 dated 08.10.2012. On the same matter, another letter was sent to the Finance Division from Law and Justice Division vide Memo No.10.00.0000.128.15.004.12(Awn)-447 dated 26.10.2022 till now no approval is received from the Finance Division
in this regard. However, Finance Division agreed to keep those posts preserved from 01.06.2022 to 31.05.2023 vide Memo No. 07.155. 015.10.05.009.2010-741 dated 19.12.2022. Learned Deputy Attorney General again submits that except challenging the virus of law or violation of fundamental rights, Judicial review of a decision of authority relating to the terms and conditions of service under Article
102 of the Constitution is not permissible (Bangladesh-VS.- Santosh
Kumar Saha reported in 21 BLC (AD) 94. But in this writ petition, the petitioner challenged none of the above, rather; challenged terms and conditions of service and hence the petition is not maintainable. He
further submits that as per conditions given by the Finance Division
there is no option to make the posts of the petitioners permanent which
is evident from the Memo No.0৫.০০.০০০০.১৫৪.১৫.০১৬.১১.১৩১ dated 27.08.2019 issued by the Ministry of Public Administration (Annexure -
2-v)' and as such the Rule is liable to discharged.
We have heard the learned counsel of both sides. We have also
gone through the writ petition, supplementary affidavit, affidavit-in- opposition, impugned notifications and all other related documents with
the petition carefully.
In 2009, Bangladesh set up The International Crimes Tribunal of Bangladesh ( ICT of Bangladesh) to investigate and prosecute suspects
for the genocide committed in 1971 by the Pakistani Army and their
local collaborators, namely Razakars, Al-Badr and Al-Shams during our
Great Liberation War. Thereafter, the Ministry of Finance created and approved 83 (Eighty-three) posts on temporary basis by two sanction
letters as contained in Memo No. 07.155.015.10.05.009.2010-502 dated 08-10-2012 and Memo No. 07.155.015.10.05.009.2010-530 dated 01- 11-2012, for the purpose of proper functioning of the International
Crimes Tribunal, Bangladesh. Next, the respondent No.1 also gave
sanction for creation of those 83 (eighty-three) posts of ICT of Bangladesh vides sanction letters as contained in Memo No. 10.00.0000.128.015.004.2012-1241 dated 06-12-2012 and Memo No. 10.00.0000.128.015.004.2012-244 dated 17-02-2013. Thereafter, on 11- 09-2014, ICT of Bangladesh published a Notice for appointment in those 83 posts vides Memo No. 10.22.0000.000.11.001. 14.1 dated 10- 09-2014 which reads as follows:
A¡¿¹S¡Ñ¡¢aL Afl¡d VÊ¡Chɤe¡m
f¤l¡ae q¡CL¡V Ñi he, Y¡L¡z
pÈ¡lL ew 10.22.0000.000.11.001.14.1 a¡¢lM: 10.09.2014 ¢MË.
¢eu¡N ¢h‘¢ç
BCe, ¢hQ¡l J pwpc ¢houL j¿»Z¡mul BCe J ¢hQ¡l ¢hi¡N (¢hQ¡l n¡M¡-8) Hl 08/07/2014 ¢MË. a¡¢lMl ¢hQ¡l-8/pwkš¤² fТaù¡e/R¡sfœ29/2010-432 ew pÈ¡lL j§m
f¡Ðç R¡sfœl ®f¢Ðr a B¿¹S¡Ñ¢aL Afl¡d V¡ÊCh¤Ée¡m l¡SüM¡a i§š² fÐaÉL hRl ®ju¡c
hª¢Ül na ÑpÇfZ§Ñ AÙÛ¡u£ ¢i ¢ša n§eÉ fc …¢m pl¡p¢l ¢eu¡Nl j¡dÉj f§lZ Ll¡l ¢e¢jš
¢e¾j¢m¢Ma naÑ p¡fr fÊaÉL¢V fcl ¢hfl£a h¢ZÑa ®k¡NÉa¡ pÇfæ h¡wm¡cnl fÐL«a e¡N¢lLcl ¢eLV qCa p¡c¡ L¡NS clM¡Ùa BqÆ¡e Ll¡ qCaRz
In response to the said notice, the petitioners as candidates
submitted their applications for appointment and eventually, they were selected by the Authority and the respondent No.5, ICT of Bangladesh issued appointment letters to the petitioners on various dates. Their appointment letters contain some terms and condition.
On receipt the appointment letters, the petitioners joined in their respective posts on different dates. Since 2014, the posts of the petitioners have been extended time to time on temporary basis.
Learned Deputy Attorney General argued that except challenging the virus of law or violation of fundamental rights, Judicial review of a decision of authority relating to the terms and conditions of service
under Article 102 of the Constitution is not permissible and as such, the writ petition is not maintainable. On the contrary, Mr. Mohammad Bakir Uddin Bhuiyan, learned Advocate for the petitioners argued that the Investigating Agency has already confirmed their manpower of ICT of Bangladesh vides Memo No.44.09.0000.0001.11. 036.22.535 dated 07.03.2022 as evident Annexure-‘R’ to the supplementary affidavit. Several staffs of the ICT of Bangladesh have been regularized in different times and they have been transferred to the equivalent posts in various Districts Courts vides Notification Nos. 317 A dated 27-10- 2015 and 216 J dated 14-10-2020, and Office Order Nos. 201/2016(A&C) dated 14-07-2016 and 46 (A&C)/2020/(A&C) dated 27-01-2020, which generates legitimate expectation in minds of other staffs of the ICT of Bangladesh to be regularized on permanent basis. He also argued that the Cabinet Division of the Government through an Office Order as contained in Memo No. MoPoBI/Ko:Bi:Sha:/KoPoGo- 11/2001-2011 dated 03-05-2003 formulated a Guideline regarding regularization of designated services of employees appointed on temporary basis and in that Guideline it was suggested that services of temporary employees can be regularized on permanent basis after 05(five) years of their regular service on temporary basis. The case in hand, it is evident that the petitioners have been performing crucial and risky duties for more than 08 years on temporary basis and the respondents have not yet regularized the designated services of the petitioners on permanent basis which is a glaring violation of their fundamental rights to be treated in accordance with law and shall get
equal opportunity in public employment without any discrimination as guaranteed under the Constitution. Considering these aspect of the matter, we are of the view that the petitioners are in service with the ICT of Bangladesh, their services can be considered as similar as to the service of the other employees of the ICT of Bangladesh. However the High Court Division can entertain writ petition relating to question of service matter when the matter relates to the discrimination among the employees in similar and identical matters. We find support of this contention in the cases of Government of Bangladesh-Vs.- Md. Mosharraf Hossain and others, reported in 71 DLR (AD) 4, (Para-13 &14) and also in the case of Bangladesh Vs Santosh Kumar Saha, reported in 21 BLC(AD) 94 (Para-146) and as such, we are of the view that the instant writ petition is maintainable.
Now, the question is whether the petitioners can claim as their right that they should be regularized on permanent basis after successful completion of their probation period subject to fulfillment of condition stipulated in Rule-6(4) of B¿¹SÑ¡¢aL Afl¡d V¡ÊCh¤eÉ¡m (pq¡uL LjÑLaÑ¡ J LjÑQ¡l£) ¢eu¡N ¢h¢dj¡m¡, 2014.
Learned Advocate for the petitioners argued that the petitioners were duly appointed and they have requisite qualifications. They have been continuing their service in their respective posts with utmost sincerity to the satisfaction of all. As the petitioners were joined in their respective posts of ICT of Bangladesh on temporary yearly basis, therefore, they have legitimate expectation that, they would be regularized against the permanent posts. In the case of Bangladesh Biman Corporation –vs.- Rabeya Bashri Irene and others reported in 55 DLR (AD) 132. the Hon’ble Appellate Division held as under:-
“In the background of the existing practice of absorbing the employee of the petitioner’s category on satisfactory completion of the initial period of employment under a contract, it can be said that there was a reasonable ground for the writ petitioners to expect for being absorbed permanently in the service of the corporation.”
The writ petition concerning regularization/absorption on permanent basis in the revenue budget with the continuity of services were disposed of by this Division in several cases mainly based on the decision of Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Manpower vs. Mohammad Anisur Rahman 18 MLR (AD) 372 and the Chief Engineer, the Local Government and Engineering Department and others vs. Kazi Mizanur Rahman and others 17, BLC (AD) 91.
But, on an subsequent appeal against a decision of this kind arising out of writ petition No. 7166 of 2015, the Hon'ble Appellate Division finally set at rest the earlier decisions passed by this Division mainly based on 18 MLR (AD) 372 and 17 BLC (AD) 91. We have found that the Hon'ble Appellate Division has cleared up every aspect of the common issues leaving no ambiguity. The decision is the secretary Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock and others vs. Abdur Razzak and others reported in 71 DLR (AD) 399. For better understanding and to dispel all sorts of anomalies it is better to quote only the most relevant portion from Judgment of the Appellate Division. Their lordships crystallized the whole thing in the following manner:
"Since the provisions of "Bidhimalas" are statutory provisions the authority concerned must comply with the provisions of the "Bidhimalas" as quoted earlier before regularization of absorbed officers and employees in the revenue set up. However, this Court is bound to insist the Government making regular and proper recruitments and is bound not to encourage or shut its eyes to the persistent transgression of the rules of regular recruitment. No court can direct the Government or its instrumentalities to regularize the service of the officers and employees of the development project in the revenue budget in the cases where statutory requirements have not been fulfilled. Regularization cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is statutory requirement that opportunity shall be given to eligible persons by public notification and recruitment should be according to the valid procedure and appointment should be of the qualified persons found fit for appointment to a post or an office under the Government. When the High Court Division is approached for relief by filing writ petition, necessarily the High Court Division has to ask itself whether the person before it had any legal right to be enforced or not. It cannot be directed to devise a third mode
of selection. Accordingly, it is observed that:
override the statutory provision. The doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked for creation of posts to facilitate absorption in the offices of the regular cadres/non cadres. Creation of permanent posts is a matter for the employer and the same is based on policy decision.
In view of the discussion made above and since it is not apparent from the judgment of the High Court Division and other materials available in the record that the procedure provided in the Government notification, circulars or orders and the process of appointment indicated in the "Bidhimalas" 1995 or 2005 have been followed duly for appointing the writ petitioners and that they are no longer in service in view of terms of appointment letters and contracts, the direction of the High Court Division to absorb/regularise their service giving continuity of the same cannot be approved. So, the same is set aside."
We have also perused the record, wherefrom it is transpires that the petitioners were appointed on temporary basis under the revenue fund. During the appointment process, the Rules relating to employees of the ICT of Bangladesh were introduced. Accordingly, the appointment letter of the petitioners also contained terms and conditions of the B¿¹S¡Ñ¢aL Afl¡d V¡ÊCh¤eÉ¡m (pq¡uL LjÑLaÑ¡ J LjÑQ¡l£) ¢eu¡N ¢h¢dj¡m¡, 2014. Thus, the appointment process relating to the employees of the ICT of Bangladesh are different than the judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble Appellate Division in the decision is the secretary Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock and others vs. Abdur Razzak and others reported in 71 DLR (AD) 399. However, this decision is also relevant to the writ petitioner because they were appointed under the provision of the said B¿¹SÑ¡¢aL Afl¡d VÊ¡Che¤É¡m (pq¡uL LjÑLaÑ¡ J LjQÑ¡l£) ¢eu¡N ¢h¢dj¡m¡, 2014. The appointment letter of one the petitioner is contains some terms and condition which reads as follows-
আ জা িতক অপরাধ াই dনাল
রাতন হইেকাট, ভবন ঢাকা। (Website: www.ict-bd.org)
ারক নং- আ ঃ অপঃ াইঃ-১/২৩/২০১৫ তািরখঃ ১২/০১/২০১৫ ি ঃ
িতঃ
....................
....................
...................
িবষয়: িনেয়াগপ s দান সে ।
আইন, িবচার ও সংসদ িবষয়ক ম ণালেয়র আইন ও িবচার িবভাগ (িবচার শাখা-৮) এর ০৮/০৭/২০১৪
• ঃ তািরেখর িবচার-৮/সং িত ান/ছাড়প s-২৯/২০১০-৪৩২ নং ারক েল া ছাড়পে sর ি েত
আ জ ািতক অপরাধ াই dনােলর সহায়ক কমকতা /কমচ ারী িনেয়াগ িবিধমালা, ২০১৪ এর িবিধ ৪(২) মাতােবক
৩য় ও ৪থ ণীর পেদ িনেয়াগদােনর লে d গ ত বাছাই কিম র গত ০১/০১/২০১৫ি ঃ তািরেখর ১০.২২.০০০০.০০০.১১.০০১.১৪.১৮ নং ারেক দ পািরশ অ েমাদন eেম আপনােক িন িলিখত শেত জাতীয়
বতন 3ল, ২০০৯ এর ১৩ নং gেড টাকা ৫৫০০-৩৪৫×৭-৭৯১৫-ইিব-৩৮০×১১-১২০৯৫ বতন eম অ সাের
'লাইে zরীয়ান' পেদ েত dক বছর ময়াদ ি র শেত স ণ অ :ায়ী িভি েত িনেয়াগ দান করা হেলাঃ-
২। উ েপ িনেয়াগ া 'লাইে zরীয়ান' এর ে s িন প শতা বলী েযাজ d হেব, যথাঃ-
(ক) এই িনেয়াগপ s অ সাের যাগদােনর তািরখ হেত ০২ ( ই) বৎসেরর জ আপিন িশ ানিবস ের
থাকেবন। তেব :ায়ীকর ণর েব উ ময়াদ এক বা একািধকবার অিতির ০২ ( ই) বৎসর পয
• করা যােব;
(খ) আপিন া : dগতভােব উ পেদ িনেয়াগেযা এবং উ পেদর দািয় পালেন কান াঘাত ি )
করেত পােরন এমন কান দিহক বকে গেছন না এই স েক িসিভল সাজন , সরকাির কমচ াির হাসপাতাল, কেলজ রাড, ঢাকা বা তদক ক এত ে ে মেনানীত কান মিডেকল অিফসার ক ক দ া : d পরী ার িতেবদন দািখল করেত হেব;
(গ) আপিন জাতে র চা রীেত িনেয়ােগর জ অ প নন মেম িলশ ক ক যাচাইঅে
সে াষজনক ভিরিফেকশন িরেপাট াি সােপে মািণত হেত হেব;
(ঘ) কান িশ ানিবেসর িশ ানিবস ময়াদ বা বিধত ময়াদ থাকেল তা চলাকােল য কান সময় বা উহা
শষ হবার পরবত ০৬ (ছয়) মােসর মে িনেয়াগকারী ক প যিদ মেন কেরন য, ত র আচরণ ও
কম সে াষজনক নয়, বা sমত িছল না িকংবা ত র কমদ হওয়ার স বনা নই তাহেল িনেয়াগকারী ক প উ ময়াদ চলাকােল বা sমত উ ০৬ (ছয়) মােসর মে কান কারণ দশা েনা িতেরেক িশ ানিবেসর চা রীর অবসান ঘটােত পােরন;
(ঙP) িনেয়াগ া ি - ক (ক) উপ-অ ে েদ উি িখত িশ ণ হবার েবই একজন
জামানতদারসহ ৫০ (প াশ) টাকা েলার নন- িডিসয়াল dাে এই মেম এক ব স াদন করেত হেব য, যিদ িতিন িশ ানিবিসকােল অথবা িশ ানিবিসকাল উ ীণ হবার ০৩ (িতন) বৎসেরর মে চা রীেত ই ফা দন তা হেল িশ ানিবিসকােল তােক দ বতন-ভাতািদ িতিন
ফরৎ িদেত বা থাকেবন;
(চ) িনেয়াগ া ি যিদ ত র ই ফাপ s হীত হবার েব অ ে দ (৫) মাতােবক সরকােরর া
অথ ফরত না িদেয় কতে অ পি :ত থােকন তাহেল উপ-অ ে দ (৫) অ যায়ী ত র িনকট া
দময় অথ িবধান অ সাের আদায়েযা হেব;
(ছ) এই িনেয়াগপ s আ জা িতক অপরাধ াই dনােলর সহায়ক কমকতা /কমচ ারী িনেয়াগ িবিধমালা,
২০১৪ এর িবিধ ৪(২) মাতােবক গ ত বাছাই কিম ক ক দ ফলাফল ও পািরশ অ সাের
দান করা হেয়েছ।
(জ) িনেয়াগ া ি যিদ কান িবেদশী নাগিরকেক িববাহ কেরন অথবা িববাহ করেত িত িতব হন
তা হেল তার এই িনেয়াগ বািতল বেল গ হেব;
(ঝ) িশ ানিবস 'লাইে zরীয়ান' এর চা রী সং eা অ া িবষেয় সরকাির কমচ ারী ( লা ও আপীল)
িবিধমালা, ১৯৮৫ ও সরকাির কমচ ারী (আচরণ) িবিধমালা, ১৯৭৯ এবং সরকােরর চ থ ণীর
কমচ ারীগেণর ে s েযাজ d িনয়মাবলী অ সরণ করা হেব;
(ঞ) কান িশ ানিবসেক চা রীেত :ায়ী করা হেল পনশন, অিজত ও অ া িবষেয় িশ ানিবিস
ময়াদ তার মাট চা রীকােলর অ হেব;
(ট) এই িনেয়াগপে s িনিদ ) ভােব বিণত হয়িন এ প ে s ত র চা রীর শতা িদ িনেয়াগকারী ক প
ক ক সময় সময় ণীত আইন, আেদশ ও িবিধ-িবধান ারা িনয়ি ত হেব এবং
(ঠ) চা রীেত যাগদােনর জ িতিন কান মণ ভাতা/ দিনক ভাতা া হেবন না।
3z যিদ উপেরর শতা বলী আপনার িনকট gহণেযা হয় তাহেল আপিন আগামী ২০/০১/২০১৫ি ঃ তািরখ বা ে
িন া রকারীর িনকট যাগদান করেবন। িনধা িরত তািরেখ চা রীেত যাগদান না করেল আপিন চা রীেত যাগদান করেত স ত হনিন মেম এই িনেয়াগ প s বািতল বেল গ হেব।
( মাঃ মা ািফ র রহমান)
রিজ ার
আ জা িতক অপরাধ াই dনাল, ঢাকা।
ফানঃ ৯৫১৪০০৩ ফ dা ঃ ৯৫১৪০০৯
We also noticed that other appointment letters also issued by the Authority concerned under similar terms and condition. We have also
perused the আ জা িতক অপরাধ াই dনােলর সহায়ক কমকতা /কমচ ারী িনেয়াগ িবিধমালা, ২০১৪, wherefrom it is transpires that the petitioners have accrued specific legal
rights under Rule 6(3)(Ka) of B¿¹SÑ¡¢aL Afl¡d VÊ¡Che¤É¡m (pq¡uL LjÑLa¡Ñ J
LjÑQ¡l£) ¢eu¡N ¢h¢dj¡m¡, 2014, as they were appointed as per the said Bidhimala. Thus, the petitioners have legitimate expectation to be regularized on permanent basis after the completion of their 02(two)
year probation period and as such, the respondents are under legal obligation to regularize the services of the petitioners on permanent
basis. We also noticed that the Registrar of International Crime
Tribunal, Dhaka vide Memo dated 12.07.2018 and 30.10.2018 requested
the respondent No.1, Law and Justice Division of the Ministry of Law,
Justice and Parliamentary Affairs to confirm the service of the petitioners in ICT of Bangladesh following the provision of Rules
6(1)(Ka) and Rule 6(1)(Kha) of the B¿¹S¡Ñ¢aL Afl¡d VÊ¡Ch¤eÉ¡m (pq¡uL LjÑLa¡Ñ
J LjQÑ¡l£) ¢eu¡N ¢h¢dj¡m¡, 2014 and the office of the respondent No.1 vide
Memo dated 21.04.2019 and 23.07.2019 requested the Secretary of the
Ministry of Public Administration and Ministry of Finance to take necessary steps and consider the issue of regularization/confirmation of
services of the petitioners in ICT of Bangladesh, but the respondents did
not pay any heed to it.
We also noticed that in the meantime, the Investigating Agency of
the ICT of Bangladesh identified more than 15,000 (fifteen thousand) of accused relating to genocide and it is also a political commitment of Bangladesh that the War Criminals of 1971 should be punished, otherwise, the identity of Bangladesh as a Nation will suffer a lot. The Ministry of Law and Parliamentary Affairs, the respondent No,1 the administrative ministry concerning ICT of Bangladesh and ICT itself
time and again requested that the Ministry of Public Administration and
the Ministry of Finance to regularize the petitioners, but both the Ministries failed to take necessary steps as per provision of আ জা িতক অপরাধ াই dনােলর সহায়ক কমকতা /কমচ ারী িনেয়াগ িবিধমালা, ২০১৪. However, some people of Bangladesh who corroborated with the Pakistani’s in our Great Liberation War are always tried to frustrate the judicial activities of the
ICT of Bangladesh and the respondents are sitting idly without regularizing the employees of ICT of Bangladesh, which will support
the purpose of those who opposes the judicial activities of ICT of Bangladesh.
Considering these aspect of the case and the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioners and the learned Deputy Attorney General, we are of the view that the Rule have got much merit to succeed and the respondents should be directed to regularize/confirm
the petitioners as per provision of আ জ ািতক অপরাধ াই dনােলর সহায়ক কমকতা /কমচ ারী
িনেয়াগ িবিধমালা, ২০১৪.
Accordingly, the Rule is disposed of with direction. The respondents are directed to regularize into the designated services of the petitioners in International Crimes Tribunal, Bangladesh on permanent basis with arrear salary and all other service benefits, if any, from the date of their entitlements within 03(three) months from the date of receipt of this order, in accordance with law.
There will be no order as to cost.
Office is directed to communicate the judgment and order at once.
Mohammad Showkat Ali Chowdhury, J:
I agree.
Azad/B.O.