No pension benefits for resignation before completing 25 years of service

The Appellate Division has held in a verdict that if a government employee resigns before completing a 25-year tenure of service, they will not be entitled to pension benefits.

The judgment noted that the legislature, based on wisdom and rational consideration, has enacted a provision stipulating that a government servant shall not be entitled to any benefits if they resign prior to completing the 25-year service threshold.

A three-member bench of the Appellate Division, led by Justice Md. Rezaul Haque, delivered the verdict on 11 March, allowing an appeal filed by the State against a High Court judgment.

The other two members of the bench were Justice SM Emdadul Hoque and Justice Farah Mahbub.

The 28-page full text of the verdict was published on the Supreme Court website on 9 July. The judgment was penned by Justice Farah Mahbub.

According to the case documents, Mahbub Morshed joined the judicial service as an Assistant Judge in 1991. After completing 19 years of service, he voluntarily tendered his resignation on 31 January 2011, whilst serving as an Additional District Judge. In 2015, he submitted an application to the Ministry of Law, seeking the sanction of a 61 per cent pension and gratuity based on his 19 years of service.

Consequently, a letter sent from the Office of the Chief Accounts Officer to the Ministry of Law on 25 March 2015 stated that a resignation from government service entails the forfeiture of past service (the duration spent in employment). In other words, it shall not be qualifying service for pension (Rule 300, Section 3 of the Bangladesh Service Rules, Part I). The pensioner’s (Mahbub Morshed) length of service did not reach 25 years. He was deemed ineligible for a pension as he had not applied under the relevant provisions subject to the completion of 25 years of service (Section 9 of the Public Servants (Retirement) Act, 1974).

Under these circumstances, Mahbub Morshed filed a writ petition in 2016, challenging the validity of Rule 300 and the aforementioned letter.

Following the final hearing, the High Court delivered its judgment on 18 March 2021. The verdict declared the letter dated 25 March 2015 to be without lawful authority. Simultaneously, the court directed the authorities to compute and sanction Mahbub Morshed's pension and other outstanding benefits in accordance with his length of service within 90 days of receiving a copy of the judgment.

The State subsequently filed a Leave to Appeal (an application seeking permission to appeal) against this verdict. On 24 October 2022, the Appellate Division granted the Leave to Appeal, whilst maintaining the stay order on the High Court's judgment. Following this, the State formally lodged the appeal.

Allowing the appeal filed by the State, the Appellate Division cancelled the High Court's judgment on 11 March.

Additional Attorneys General Mohammed Arshadur Rauf and Aneek R. Haque represented the State during the court hearings. The writ petitioner, Advocate Md. Mahbub Morshed, argued the case himself.

Mahbub Morshed told Prothom Alo that a decision regarding whether to file a review petition would be taken after obtaining a certified copy of the verdict.