The Appellate Division has ruled that judicial officers who voluntarily resign before completing 25 years of qualifying service are not entitled to pension or other retirement benefits.

The apex court said no law allows pension for judicial officers who resign before completing the required 25 years of service.

Allowing the government’s appeal, the court set aside a High Court judgement that had directed the authorities to grant pension to former judicial officer Md Mahboob Murshed.

The three-member bench of Justice Md Rezaul Haque, Justice SM Emdadul Hoque and Justice Farah Mahbub delivered the verdict on March 11. Justice Farah Mahbub wrote the judgement, and its full text was released on July 9.

Mahboob Murshed joined the Bangladesh Judicial Service as an assistant judge in December 1991. He resigned on January 31, 2011 while serving as an additional district judge after completing 19 years of service.

After resigning, he applied for a pension. The Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs approved his claim for 61 per cent pension based on his pensionable service.

However, the audit and accounts officer of the Finance Division returned his pension proposal on March 25, 2015, despite the ministry’s approval.

Murshed, now a Supreme Court lawyer, then challenged the decision in the High Court.

The Appellate Division held that Rule 300(a) of the Bangladesh Service Rules, Part I, is constitutional. The rule says an officer loses the benefit of past service after resignation.

The court said the service laws governing judicial officers do not recognise resignation as a ground for pension. Pension is available only in situations specifically provided by law.

The court also said an administrative approval by the Law Ministry cannot create a legal right if the law itself does not allow it.

It ruled that the Finance Division acted lawfully in returning the pension papers and that the decision did not violate Article 31 of the Constitution.

The Appellate Division also found that the High Court had wrongly relied on a government notification issued on October 14, 2015, which revised the pension table according to the length of qualifying service.

The apex court said the notification only explains how much pension an eligible employee will receive. It does not create a new right to pension for employees who resign before completing the required service.

The judgement says the Bangladesh Service Rules recognise six types of pension — compensation, invalid, superannuation, retiring, extraordinary and family pension. None of these applies to resignation.

Retiring pension is available only after completing at least 25 years of qualifying service under the relevant rules.

Rejecting the High Court’s view that a person who resigns before retirement should receive proportionate pension based on years of service, the Appellate Division said such an interpretation has no legal basis.

The court also observed that the 25-year qualifying service requirement reflects the legislature’s policy to ensure continuity, discipline and long-term commitment in public service. Granting pension to officers who resign early would undermine that policy and the statutory pension system.

The Appellate Division also dismissed Murshed’s application under Article 104 of the constitution. In that application, he sought reinstatement with seniority, promotion, back wages and other service benefits or, alternatively, pension and Tk 2 crore as compensation.

The court said its power under Article 104 is an extraordinary jurisdiction and can be exercised only in exceptional cases where no other legal remedy exists and a person has suffered a clear injustice without any fault on his part.

Since Murshed had voluntarily resigned knowing that resignation did not confer pension rights under the law, the court held that he was not entitled to any relief.

The Appellate Division therefore allowed the government’s appeal, dismissed the Article 104 application, set aside the High Court judgement and reaffirmed that judicial officers who resign before completing 25 years of qualifying service have no legal right to pension or retirement benefits unless the law is changed.