High Court Division · Special Original Jurisdiction
Md. Eftekharul Islam v Government of Bangladesh and others
Writ Petition 4920/2025 · Decided 26 July 2026
A retired Director of the Department of Disaster Management went on post-retirement leave in 2021 and applied for pension in 2022. His department certified that nothing was owed by him and forwarded his papers to the Ministry, but his pension was not paid. The Department said audit objections in the Comptroller and Auditor General's reports remained unsettled and that the writ petition was not maintainable. The High Court Division held the petition maintainable because the petitioner sought mandamus to compel performance of a legal duty, not determination of his right. It found no specific allegation against him on the large sum cited, noted that the department had cleared him and the Ministry had only warned him, and that no departmental or criminal proceeding was pending, which under section 51 of the Public Servant Act, 2018 would bar pension. An audit objection alone creates no liability. The respondents were directed to pay within 30 days regardless of the audit objection, and the C&AG to resolve it immediately.
- Q1
Whether a writ of mandamus is maintainable to compel payment of pension where entitlement is undisputed.
- Q2
Whether a retired public servant's pension can be withheld indefinitely because of an unsettled audit objection of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
- A writ petition seeking mandamus to compel payment of pension is maintainable where the petitioner's entitlement is undisputed and the respondents' corresponding statutory duty is apparent.
- Under section 51 of the Public Servant Act, 2018, pension is withheld only where a departmental or criminal proceeding is pending on retirement, and the Act contains no other disentitling condition.
- An audit objection by itself neither determines any liability nor creates an enforceable claim against a retired employee, and cannot justify withholding pension indefinitely unless it results in a lawful finding of liability or a duly initiated proceeding.
- Pension is not a matter of grace but a statutory right earned by long service, which cannot be defeated by administrative inaction or an indefinitely pending audit objection.
- A claim for interest on delayed pension that went beyond the terms of the Rule was not considered.
Unless such objection culminates in a finding of liability in accordance with law or forms the basis of a duly initiated proceeding under the service rules, it cannot be relied upon to withhold pension benefits indefinitely.
In the court’s own words.
Writ Petition 4920/2025, as published by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. 15 pages, with paragraph numbers for citing.
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
HIGH COURT DIVISION
(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
Writ Petition No. 4920 of 2025
IN THE MATTER OF:
An application under Article 102 of the
Constitution of the People’s Republic of
Bangladesh.
-AND-
IN THE MATTER OF:
Md. Eftekharul Islam
……Petitioner
-Versus-
Present:
Mr. Justice Sashanka Shekhar Sarkar The Government of the People’s Republic
And of Bangladesh, represented by the
Justice Urmee Rahman Secretary, Ministry of Disaster
Management and Relief and others
….. Respondents
Ms. Amatul Karim, Advocate with
Mr. Md. Motiar Rahman, Advocate
…For the petitioner
Mr. Sajed Sami Ahammad, Advocate with
Mr. Md. Jakaria Khan, Advocate
…For the Respondent No. 2
Heard on 12.05.2026 and 07.07.2026
Judgment on 26.07.2026
Urmee Rahman, J:
In the instant writ petition Rule was issued in the following
terms:
“Let a Rule nisi be issued calling upon the
Respondents to show cause as to why a direction
should not be given upon the respondents to pay all the
retirement benefits of the petitioner as he lawfully
entitled to get the same from the date as he was
allowed to go on retirement and/or pass such other or
further order or orders as to this Court may seem fit
and proper.”
1Relevant facts for disposal of the matter, in brief, are that, the petitioner joined as District Relief and Rehabilitation Officer on 13.02.1989 in the Department of the Disaster Management, under the Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of ‘Deputy Director’ on 01.10.2006 and he was given the current charge of the vacant post of ‘Director’ on 22.03.2009. Lastly, he was given promotion to the post of Director on 22.10.2012. As per Rule 43(1)(a) of the Government Employment Scheme, 2018 (Act No. 57 of 2018), the petitioner was allowed to go on PRL on 09.09.2021 and he retired as ‘Director’ with effect from 09.09.2022. Earlier, vide memo dated 06.01.2019 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Finance Division all pension granting authorities were directed to refrain from unintended and illegal practice of non-payment of pension benefits or delay in granting permission due to non-completion of audit report of any period of service of the retired employees. But the respondents refrained from disbursing petitioner’s pension benefits as yet.
2Being aggrieved thereby the petitioner served a Notice Demanding Justice upon the respondents on 07.04.2025 praying for disbursement of his lawful entitlement of pension benefits, however, no response has been made thereto till date. Finding no other alternative and equally efficacious remedy available, the
petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition and obtained the present Rule.
3Ms. Amatul Karim with Mr. Md. Motiar Rahman, learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that, after completion of unblemished service the petitioner is lawfully entitled to get his pension benefit in due course but the respondents have been refrained from making the disbursement and verbally denying the same without any valid reason in gross violation of law.
4Learned Advocate next submitted that, retirement benefit is a property within the meaning of Article 152 of the Constitution of Bangladesh and the Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save and except by the authority of Law. The duty of the state to disburse the pension immediately on the retirement of an employee is obligatory. Withholding and denying the pension benefits to the petitioner is liable to be declared illegal and without any lawful basis.
5She strongly submitted that, considering the Bangladesh Service Rules (BSR) Part I, Rules 242-505, there is no statutory basis for the sanctioning authority not to pay pension wages or making any delay in processing the sanction of pension if any period of service of the employee remains unaudited and as such the respondents are required to be directed to pay the pension benefits to the petitioner forthwith.
6She forcefully submitted that, respondents have illegally detained the money of the petitioner. After having served for 31 (thirty one) years, it was the bona fide and legitimate expectation of the petitioner that he would be paid his entitled retirement benefits immediately after his retirement. Despite submitting repeated representations and service of legal notice upon the authority, it is not disbursing the pension benefits to the petitioner in a mala fide and in an arbitrary manner.
7By filing a supplementary affidavit dated 22.05.2025 learned Advocate for the petitioner further submitted that, there were as many as 8 (eight) officials designated to the post of Deputy Director, who worked under the petitioner's supervision and gone on retirement, have been paid full pension benefits without any objection. But the authority is withholding the lawful entitlement of the petitioner in an unlawful manner.
8She also submitted that, the petitioner applied for pension in due process on 28.06.2022 and the department of Disaster Management opined that there are no owing of the Department from the petitioner and forwarded his documents to the Secretary, Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief vide memo dated 21.08.2022. Hence, the respondents are lawfully obligated to make payment of the petitioner’s pension benefits at once.
9Learned Advocate finally submitted that, if there is any audit objection during the service period of the petitioner, that should be resolved within the specified period of 3 (three) months as per the
Public Servants’ Pension Simplification Order, 2020. That stipulated period has already elapsed much earlier on 28.09.2022. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get the full pension and service benefits with interest for the willful delay committed by the respondent authority. In support of her submission she placed reliance on the case of A. J. Randhawa Supdg. Engineer (Retd.) vs. State of Punjab and others reported in (1997) 117 PLR 6. In this case the authority was directed to grant pension benefits with interest because of the delay in making the lawful entitlement of the petitioner.
10Conversely, learned Advocates Mr. Sajed Sami Ahammad with Mr. Md. Zakaria, entered appearance on behalf of the respondent No. 2 i.e. the Director General (DG) of Department of Disaster Management and Relief and contested the Rule by filing an affidavit in opposition.
11Learned Advocate submitted that, the petitioner served as a Director in different sectors of the Department of the Disaster Management, Dhaka. During his service, as many as 8 (eight) audit objections were raised against him in respect of Taka 220 Crore in yearly Audit Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of Bangladesh (C&AG) and 2 (two) audit objections still remained unresolved. For this reason his pension benefits are not being disbursed. There is no willful inaction on behalf of the respondent authority.
12He further submitted that, the Broad Sheet (BS) reply to the audit objections raised against the petitioner was sent several times to Directorate of Audit. The tri-partite meetings on the audit objections were held recommending for settlement of the same. However, it was not accepted as being settled by the Directorate of Social Safety and Audit.
13He next submitted that, the Comptroller and Auditor General of Bangladesh (C&AG), being empowered by the Constitution, plays a crucial role in public sectors auditing, ensuring that the public funds are spent in accordance with law. The audit observations were raised against the petitioner during his service in the C&AG's report and the same are remained unsettled. Hence, the petitioner cannot get his retirement benefits until the audit objections raised against him are fully settled.
14It is the contention of the learned Advocate that, the respondents have taken necessary steps for settlement of the audit observations raised against the petitioner by sending Broad Sheet reply and holding tri-partite meetings on the audit objections. They acted with utmost good faith. There is no mala fide intention or arbitrariness on the part of the respondents in not paying the retirement benefits to the petitioner and as such the Rule issued by this Hon'ble Court may kindly be discharged.
15He also submitted that, pursuant to Clause ‘Kha’ of Order 4.10 of the " , " the petitioner cannot claim his retirement benefits until the audit
objections raised against him in the C&AG's report are finally settled.
16Learned Advocate finally submitted that, the grievance of the petitioner has arisen out of his service as a public servant and the writ petition is filed for direction to pay the pension and service benefits to him. Under the statutory provisions of the country, the petitioner could seek the remedies available in other alternative forum, if he has any legal claim. As such the instant writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner had statutory efficacious alternative remedy available. Hence, the Rule issued in the instant writ petition is liable to be discharged.
17We have heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the writ petition and as well as all the documents annexed therewith.
18Since the learned Advocate appearing for Respondent No. 2 has agitated the question of maintainability of the instant writ petition, we deem it appropriate to address this issue at the outset.
19The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by way of a petition in the nature of Mandamus, seeking a direction upon the respondents to disburse the pension benefits to which he is lawfully entitled following his retirement from service. There is no dispute either as to the petitioner's service or as to his entitlement to the pension benefits. It is, however, evident that such benefits have not yet been disbursed owing to an unresolved audit objection before the Comptroller and Auditor General of Bangladesh.
20It is pertinent to observe that the petitioner has not approached this Court for the purpose of establishing or determining his right to pension. Rather, he has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to perform an act which they are otherwise legally bound to perform.
21In the circumstances, where the petitioner's entitlement is undisputed and the respondents' obligation to discharge the corresponding statutory duty is apparent, we are of the considered view that the instant writ petition is maintainable in its present form, being a proper invocation of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 102(2)(1)(i) of the Constitution of the People's Republic of Bangladesh.
22It is admitted that the petitioner went on Post Retirement Leave (PRL) on 09.09.2021 and he was supposed to go on retirement on completion of one year i.e. on 09.09.2022. Accordingly on 28.06.2022 he made a representation before the authority praying for granting his monthly retirement allowance as well as gratuity allowance.
23It is evident from Annexure-I to the supplementary affidavit dated 27.05.2025 that, the respondent No. 2 by the memo dated 21.08.2022 categorically stated that there is no due against the petitioner by the department and therefore, sent the relevant documents to the concerned Ministry for granting the pension and other ancillary retirement benefits of the petitioner.
Annexure-I to the supplementary affidavit is reproduced
24below:
NZfÐS¡a¿»£ h¡wm¡−cn plL¡l
c¤−kÑ¡N hÉhÙÛ¡fe¡ A¢dcçl
c¤−kÑ¡N hÉhÙÛ¡fe¡ ihe
92-93 jq¡M¡m£ h¡/H, Y¡L¡-1212
www.ddm.gov.bd
25pÈ¡lL ew 51.01.0000.003.018.005.10.981 a¡¢lM: 21.08.2022 ¢MÊ.
26: Se¡h Cg−aM¡l¦m Cpm¡j, (¢fA¡lHm L«a, c¤−kÑ¡N ! " A¢dcçl, Y¡L¡ Hl
27# $% & ' % j”¤¢l () *।
, – ./ 01 % ' % 2 3 4 3, Cg−aM¡l¦m 5 ,
( # la), c¤−kÑ¡N " '7 8 , 9 # A¡N¡j£ :- :- 2¢MË. %
28' = >? (Post Retirement Leave) । '$3 % 7 % #
$% & ' % M = N O ( PQ L¡NSfœ
29R । # A¢dcç−l a¡l ¢eLV f¡Je¡ ®eCz
।# % " , 5N %< S 5 , ( # %), c¤−kÑ¡N ! "
30'7 8 ,9 # # $% & ' % M ¢e¢jš N ( PQ
31T #%U V 0 ।
32(-/: . % W।
( %X qL)
N : YZZ[Y495
dg@ddm.gov.bd
33p¢Qh c¤−kÑ¡N ! " &T a
34( ,9 । '$ :
35[। 5N %< S 5 , ( # %), b 3 . ! " '7 8 ,9 । [[
It appears from the affidavit in opposition that an audit
36objection was raised by the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, (C&AG), which is still unsettled. However, on meticulous examination of the documents annexed as Annexures- 1, 1-A, 2 and 2-A of the affidavit in opposition we do not find any specific allegation particularly against this petitioner regarding the objection
of 220 Crore Taka. It appears from Annexure-1(B) to the affidavit in opposition that, there is an objection raised by respondent No. 2 regarding an amount of 46,550 taka against the petitioner but the facts remains that, the respondent No. 2 has given clearance to petitioner in granting pension, as we have already seen from Annexure-I.
37Moreover, it is evident from Annexure-3 to the affidavit-inopposition that, by the memo dated 06.12.2020 issued by the concerned Ministry the petitioner was, in substance, exonerated from the allegations brought against him, as the authority having regard to the fact that he was due to retire shortly, chose to give him only a warning without imposing any punishment under the Service Rules of 2018.
38Now it is required to examine the concerned provision of law regarding withholding pension benefits. Section 51 of the Public Servant Act, 2018 provides that, when a public servant goes on retirement, if there is any departmental proceeding or any criminal proceeding pending against him, he shall not be eligible to get the pension benefits.
39There is no other specific condition mentioned in this Act which can disentitle an employee from having his pension benefits. “plL¡¢l LjÑQ¡l£N−Zl ®fene pqS£LlZ A¡−cn, 2020 in clause 4.10 provides that:
40“e.[ ' fW = g¢š:
41( ) 0 h. 1 ' . ' gi ' fW = j
42(3 k ) 3. .Q l ' fW ' 7 8
43(0 3 m 1 T) 0 । 0 ( PQ ' fW ' 7 8
44% n- 1 & T- 1 l ' fW = g= ! " o
% 5 । ' . %. / . S q ,r % ' gæ
45' fW = g= ' fW ' 7 8 j . s 'o 7 0
। t . %. #5 N u % qC−hez
46(
475 0 h. 1 v #w ' fW ( #w# ) .
48' fW W .x/ ' fW = !% % '2 2 ' fW = % % !/ %
R % ' 7 y (% ) l 7. z ' fW
=%' . %. / . !/ % k 3k %
M % 5 z !/ % k % W
495% O . 'k % 0z $% 5 % %. O . ( %{ %
50| 1) 5 g= % 5 । ' fW = % ( PQ
510 h. 1 h. 3 !/ 'k k.
52(P k % ,/ ' fW = 2 .
53M % } 35 ।
54( ) , – ./ ( ) & (
y – :- [Z ¢MËx % < •% €. . .[€[.[y. [[.14-
55111 ( f−œ , ~
56(O) ' o . # # 7 ". ' fW
57' „i k a¡q¡l … % } 35 । #5
58'k . ƒ- [- [: † % < €, , ,[7[.[3. .[e- [ (
T '$ 5 ( (3 -[y)। . ' o 3
S q ' fW = ,r % # ( ' fW = % ,/
59. %. / . !/ % k. (P 0 % % 5 0
60h. 1 q * / W k
61' fW = % , ~
62It is the clear stipulation of this Order that, if any employee is not held personally liable by the concerned administrative
authority, was no delay shall be made in granting his pension due to any audit objection.
63In this provision though there is a time frame to resolve the audit objection by the administrative authority, nothing has been clearly stated as to the audit objection which remain unsettled by the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) neither there is any stipulated time period mentioned within which the C&AG should settle the audit objection. Though it has been categorically provided that, highest preference shall be given in order to settle the audit objection regarding an employee who is going on retirement.
64It is obvious from the provision of this Order, 2020 that it was the intention of the Government to simplify/facilitate the pension entitlement of a retired employee and to take necessary actions in order to disburse the pension benefits at the earliest possible opportunity.
65It is an admitted position that the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation in 2021. It is equally undisputed that no department proceeding or criminal proceeding is pending against him. The respondent no.2, who is the appointing authority of the petitioner, has candidly stated in the affidavit in opposition that they themselves have no claim whatsoever against the petitioner. The Ministry also exonerated him from the allegations by giving warning only. The sole ground put forwarded for withholding the pension benefits of the petitioner is an unsettled audit objection raised by the office of the C&AG.
66This Court is unable to accept such contention. An audit objection, by itself, neither determines any liability nor creates an enforceable claim against a retired employee. Unless such objection culminates in a finding of liability in accordance with law or forms the basis of a duly initiated proceeding under the service rules, it cannot be relied upon to withhold pension benefits indefinitely.
67It has been already settled in many cases by this Division as well as the Appellate Division that pension is not a matter of grace or virtue. It is a statutory right earned by an employee in consideration of his long and faithful service. Once the conditions prescribed by law are fulfilled, the retired employee acquires a corresponding right to receive his pension and other retirement benefits without unreasonable delay. Such right cannot be defeated by administrative inaction or by keeping an audit objection pending for an indefinite period.
68In the present case, the continued inaction of the respondents in granting pension benefits to the petitioner is arbitrary, unreasonable and without any lawful authority.
69It is also significant that the Government itself has adopted a policy decision requiring the authorities concerned to ensure expeditious settlement and disbursement of pensionary benefits and to avoid unusual delay in such matters. The impugned inaction of the respondents is plainly inconsistent with that declared policy of the Government and defeats it’s very objective.
70A retired Government employee, having devoted his active years to public service, is entitled to receive his retiral benefits promptly so that he may live his post retirement life with dignity and financial security. To compel such a person to wait indefinitely to his lawful dues is manifestly unjust.
71It transpires from the record that, during the pendency of this Rule the learned Advocate for the petitioner by filing an application for addition of parties made the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) as added respondent Nos. 4-7. Though notices were served upon them in due course, they neither appeared before this Court nor made any submissions regarding their gross failure in resolving the unsettled audit objection regarding the petitioner after a long period of 5 (five) years from the date of his retirement. This unexplained delay committed by the added respondent Nos. 4-7 is thus found to be arbitrary and without any lawful authority.
72Learned Advocate for the petitioner advanced an submission referring to the case reported in 117 PLR 6 mentioned hereinabove that, in that case the High Court of Punjab and Hariyana directed the authority to grant pension benefits with 12% interest per annum for the period of delay on the amounts to the pensioners since there was no satisfactory explanation for the delay in disbursing the pension benefits. Since this prayer is beyond the terms of Rule, we are not inclined to consider this submission.
73In view of the findings and discussion made hereinabove, we therefore find merit in the instant Rule.
74Accordingly, the Rule is made absolute.
75There is no order as to cost.
76The respondents are hereby directed to disburse the lawful entitlement of pension and service benefits to the petitioner within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order without fail, regardless of any unsettled audit objection before the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG). The C&AG is also directed to resolve the pending audit objection immediately giving highest preference to it.
77Communicate the judgment and order at once. Sashanka Shekhar Sarkar, J:
I agree.
78Helal/ABO
Related summaries.
From the record to your case.
Our advocates appear before both divisions of the Supreme Court. These are the practice areas that handle matters like this one.
- Supreme Court practice in BangladeshSlips, mentioning, cause lists and appearances→
- Case JourneysHow a case moves through the courts, step by step→
- Limitation and appeal deadline calculatorKnow your last day to file→
- Curative petitions in BangladeshFinality, article 104 and the case for reform→
- Constitution guideEvery article and amendment, animated→
- Bangladesh legal glossaryBangla and English legal terms, explained→
