Md. Abdur Rahman Vs. Govt. of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Local Government [2005] 25BCR (AD)181

Md. Abdur Rahman Vs. Govt. of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary,
Ministry of Local Government [2005] 25BCR (AD)181

1. Prepared for : Md. Abdur Rahman Vs. Govt. of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Local Government [2005] 25BCR (AD)181. Dr. Md. Arifuzzaman Assistant Professor and Chairperson Department of Law, Green University of Bangladesh Prepared By : Syed MD Alamgir Hussain ID: 223011029 Department of Law, Green University of Bangladesh Course Title: Administrative Law Course Code: LLBH 315

2. Facts Appellant served 25+ years as a work-charged employee under projects. Applied for regularisation multiple times but was denied. After retirement in 1992, he was refused pension benefits. His application before the Administrative Tribunal was dismissed, and the Administrative Appellate Tribunal also upheld the decision. Dissatisfied, he filed an appeal before the Appellate Division.

3. Issue Whether work-charged/project employee entitled to pension? Whether refusal to regularise violate equality under Arts. 27 & 29 of the Constitution? Whether govt. circulars create enforceable rights? Whether equality be claimed based on wrongly regularised employees?

4. Argument For the Appellant: Served 25+ years, deserving pension and regularisation . Govt. circulars supported the regularisation of long-serving project staff. Denial of benefits while others were regularised = discrimination. For the Respondent (Govt.): Work-charged posts are temporary; no pension applies. Circulars are administrative, not legally binding. Equality cannot be claimed on the basis of past irregularities.

5. Courts’ findings on the issues Work-charged/project employees cannot claim pension as their posts end with the project. Refusal to regularise was not discriminatory since equality applies only to lawful actions. Government circulars are mere administrative instructions without binding legal force. Wrong regularisation of others cannot justify granting the same illegal benefit again.

6. Appeal dismissed without costs. Judgment

7. End Presentation Thank You For Your Attention