ALI HAMZA MHALADER VS BANGLADESH 66 DLR HCD 575

Fact:

The applicant was a retired teacher of a Madrasah. The first MPO enlistment of the petitioner dated back to 1-6-1987 which he continued to receive up until 1997 when the impugned order was issued to suspend payments of salary and benefits to all Junior Teachers including him until further orders without assigning any further reason.
 

 

Argument from the petitioner:

It was argued from the petitioner that The decision for stoppage of MPO in 1997 taken evidently without any reason and without any prior notice was illegal and tantamount to a colourable exercise of power. His MPO entitlement amounted to a right of which he could not be deprived without cogent grounds and reasons shown.The petitioner continued in service discharging his responsibility and obligation during the period when his MPO entitlement was stopped or remained suspended.The petitioner had acquired a vested right to the MPO entitlement which was forfeited bythe impugned order.The petitioner was suffered by a de facto penalty imposed by way of a punishment wholly unknown to him on all materials.There was no evidence before the court that any proceeding where ever drawn against him.

Argument from the Respondent:
No affidavit in opposition had not been filed in this case without the two impugned orders such as stoppage order of 2-12-1997 and restoration order of 19-7-2006.

Issue:
Whether the stoppage of the Government portion of the Monthly Salary is declared with lawful authority or not?

Decision:
The discontinuance of the petitioner’s MPO was found to have been illegal and void ab initio because the Respondents had miserably failed to show any authority in law that equipped them on any material to act to the petitioner’s prejudice.

Reasoning behind the decision:
The above decision was taken on the following grounds:
 The dis entitlement of the petitioner to his MPO as of November 1997 and the continuance of such dis entitlement up until May 2005 had indeed been arbitrary and irregular. Such arbitrariness was violation of the petitioner’s right to receive adequate and meaningful information at all material dates on decisions that were made to operate against him and to his prejudice for an unduly long period of time. He had been deprived of the opportunity to earn a livelihood and live in dignity as is an essential component of the right to life.

Right to office that one holds and right to salary and entitlement one draws consequently are vested rights of an Office Bearer. Any action impairing enjoyment of such a vested right must be shown to have been objectively undertaken in accordance with the law ensuring both procedural and substantive safeguards. If such impairment was found to be caused by action not in accordance with law any act resulting such impairment or deprivation must be struck down as being illegal and without lawful authority.

Principle:
The dis entitlement of a person to his/her MPO for a long period of time in an arbitrary and irregular way without providing him/her with the opportunity of being heard is violation of then provision of Right to Life.