Appellate Division
Md. Zakir Hossain and others v Md. Abul Hasan Miah and others
Civil Appeal 37/2024 · Appeal dismissed; selection grade directed · Decided 21 May 2025
Bench Readers of the Appellate Division and Bench Officers of the High Court Division had obtained a High Court Division judgment dated 03.12.2014 entitling them to a two-tier selection grade under the National Pay Scale, 2009 after four years of service. The Appellate Division affirmed it in 2017. Similarly situated officers then brought Contempt Petition No. 287 of 2019, and on 15.09.2021 the High Court Division directed the Government officials to implement the judgment in their favour. When further officers were added and the same direction was given, the officials appealed, arguing that those appointed after the 2015 pay scale, which abolished the selection grade, did not stand on the same footing. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal. It held that the issue had been conclusively settled, that its findings bind under Article 111 of the Constitution, and that treating later appointees in the same posts differently without reasonable classification was discriminatory. It directed the selection grade to be granted within 15 days.
- Whether Bench Readers and Bench Officers who were not parties to the original writ petitions, and were appointed after the National Pay Scale, 2015, were entitled to the selection grade benefits granted by the High Court Division's judgment of 03.12.2014.
- What scope the Appellate Division may take in examining a matter in a contempt proceeding where the underlying issue has attained finality.
- The entitlement of Bench Readers and Bench Officers to selection grade benefits, based on the nature, intensity and continuity of their work, was conclusively settled by the High Court Division's judgment of 03.12.2014 as affirmed by the Appellate Division, and those findings carry binding force under Article 111 of the Constitution.
- Treating subsequent appointees to the same posts differently, in the absence of a reasonable classification, is discriminatory and contrary to the rule of law.
- In a contempt proceeding arising from a matter that has attained finality, the Court's determination must be construed in a strictly limited and confined scope, and no further examination or interpretation of the settled matter is warranted.
- Repeated attempts to delay, dilute or defy compliance with final judgments undermine the rule of law, and public functionaries are obliged to honour and execute binding decisions of the Appellate Division.
- Any further deviation would amount to defiance of the Court's order and invoke contempt jurisdiction.
- The appeal was dismissed and the appellants were directed to grant selection grade to all Bench Readers and Bench Officers who have completed four years of service within 15 days of receipt of the judgment.
These findings by the Appellate Division carry binding force under Article 111 of the Constitution and reaffirm the entitlement of Bench Readers and Bench Officers to selection grade benefits based on the nature, intensity, and continuity of their work.
