Voluntary Retirement

Voluntary retirement- Voluntary retirement scheme is a method used to reduce surplus staffs. Participation in the voluntary retirement plan is voluntary. It has to result in an overall reduction in the existing strength of employees. Accordingly, we are not inclined to accept the observation of the High Court Division that the respondents had been terminated in the grab of voluntary retirement. Moreover, the respondents have filed writ petitioners after about 8 years of the acceptance of their prayers and after receiving retirement benefits. ....BADC & others -VS- Md. Abdur Rashid & others, [1 LM (AD) 388] Voluntary retirement accepted by the BADC Authority their retirement became effective- After 10 years of their voluntary retirement and after receiving full financial benefits as offered the prayers for reinstatement cannot be termed as reasonable and fair. After having applied for VRS and taken the money it is not open to them to contend that they exercised the option under any kind of coercion and undue influence. Who had accepted the ex gratia payment or any other benefit under the scheme, could not have resiled therefrom. It became past and closed transaction. The writ petitioners having accepted the benefit could not be permitted to approbate and reprobate nor they be permitted to resile from their earlier stand. Our considered opinion is that the writ petitionerrespondents were not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. The High Court Division committed error of law in directing to reinstate the writ petitioner- respondents to their former posts and to pay their back salaries. The judgment and order of the High Court Division are set aside. The Civil Petitions are disposed of in the light of the decision of the appeals. The review petitions are dismissed accordingly. ...BADC, Dhaka =VS= Shohidul Islam(Md.), [6 LM (AD) 234] Voluntary Retirement Scheme for Government Servants: Participation in the voluntary retirement plan is voluntary and as such it cannot be said that the respondents had been terminated in the grab of voluntary retirement (Para 21). BADC Vs. Md. Abdur Rashid and others 2 CLR (AD) 142 compulsory retirement of public servants: A reading of section 9(2) of the Act, 1974 shows that in order to retire a public servant compulsorily, first condition is that a public servant must have completed twenty five years of his service; the second condition is that the Government must consider it necessary to retire a public servant compulsorily in the public interest (Para 102). Bangladesh Vs. Md. Mojibul Hoque. 3 CLR (AD) 261 post retirement leave It appears that the question has been raised as to who are the "Mujibnagar Employees" and who are "freedom fighters" and side by side the respon- dents have come up with a plea that when many of the Mujibnagar Employees as well as one of the writ petitioners have been treated as freedom fighters and have been given the bene- fit of service upto 59th year of age along with all the benefits to that extent, we feel that the question as to who are the Mujibnagar Employees and who are the freedom fighters and whether the writ petitioners(respondents herein) fall within the criterions of Mujibnagar Employees and/or freedom fighters should be considered in an appropriate case. Since a good number of Mujibnagar Employees treating them as freedom fighters have already been given the benefit of extension of service upto 59th year of age along with all the benefits of such service including one year leave and full pay of 12 months on post retirement leave(PRL), we are of the view that the writ petitioners (respondents herein) should not be dis- criminated with. Government of Bangladesh vs. Md. Golam Rahman (Mirza Hussain Haider J) (Civil) 15 ADC 886 Section 9(2): Compulsory retirement of a public is done on subjective satisfaction of the government: The satisfaction of the Government in retiring a public servant from his service after completion of twenty five years of service under section 9(2) of the Act, 1974 is subjective and not objective and such order of retirement shall be justifiable only on the ground of malafide (Para 108). Bangladesh Vs. Md. Mojibul Hoque. 3 CLR (AD) 261 Section 9(2): An order of compulsory retirement can be challenged only on the ground of being malafide: Again in a case where malafide is alleged against any person or authority, the person alleging facts constituting malafide is required to establish it. In the context, it may be stated that in none of the writ petitions, the respective writ-petitioner(s) furnished any fact which could be construed or constituted malafide except stating in a general way that the impugned order of retirement was passed malafide (Para 108). Bangladesh Vs. Md. Mojibul Hoque. 3 CLR (AD) 261 The High Court Division cannot extend the retirement age of the public servants when the same is not provided in the law: When the age limit of all the public servants was enhanced upto 59 years upon amending the relevant law, the retiring of the freedom fighters, who have been serving in the Republic, was provided upto attaining the age of 60th year. The Legislature did not provide the age limit of the Freedom Fighters to serve in the service of the Republic upto 61 years. Here, in this case, it appears from the operative portion of the impugned judgment that the High Court Division directed the writ respondents to enhance the retiring age of the writ petitioners till completion of their service till 61st year of their age. Such enhancement can only be done by the Legislature by amending the relevant law. That is, in fact, the High Court Division, indirectly, directed the Legislature to amend the relevant law (Para 8). Government Vs. Shah Jamal Mollah and anothe. 8 CLR (AD) 12 Voluntary retirement Scheme framed by the Ministry of Agriculture: Since the respondents had been relieved from the duty after acceptance of their offers of voluntary retirement and special payment of retirement benefits, the Jural relationship of the BADC and respondents came to an end: Voluntary retirement scheme is a method used to reduce surplus staffs. Participation in the voluntary-retirement plan is voluntary. It has to result in an overall reduction in the existing strength of employees. Accordingly, we are not inclined to accept the observation of the High Court Division that the respondents had been terminated in the grab of voluntary retirement. Moreover, the respondents have filed writ petitions after about 8 years of the acceptance of their prayers and after receiving retirement benefits (Para 20). BADC Vs. Md. Abdur Rashid. 7 CLR (AD) 58 Whether the Freedom Fighters, who have been serving as the servants of the Republic, are entitled to remain in their service till completiion of the 61st year of their age or not- Earlier, the retirement age of the public servants of the Republic was till completion of their service upto 57th year of their age. Thereafter, by amending the law, the retirement age of Freedom Fighters, who have been serving in the service of the Republic, was provided upto attaining 59th year of their age. When the age limit of all the public servants was enhanced upto 59 years upon amending the relevant law, the retiring of the freedom fighters, who have been serving in the Republic, was provided upto attaining the age of 60th year. The Legislature did not provide the age limit of the Freedom Fighters to serve in the service of the Republic upto 61 years. Here, in this case, it appears from the operative portion of the impugned judgment that the High Court Division directed the writ respondents to enhance the retiring age of the writ petitioners till completion of their service till 61st year of their age. Such enhancement can only be done by the Legislature by amending the relevant law. That is, in fact, the High Court Division, indirectly, directed the Legislature to amend the relevant law. (Para-8). Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka and others: -Vs.- Shah Jamal Mollah and another : (Civil) 9 CLR (AD) 59 The order of compulsory retirement passed by the then Chief Martial Law Administrator is not liable to be challenged before any Court or Tribunal as the same was passed when Martial Law was in force. Abdur Rashid Sarker vs Bangladesh 48 DLR (AD) 99.