Top Court Upholds 25-Year Service Rule for Government Pensions
Government employees who resign before completing 25 years of service are not entitled to pension benefits, the country’s highest court has definitively ruled. This significant decision by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court clarifies a long-standing point regarding public sector pensions.
A three-judge panel, led by Justice Md. Rezaul Haque, delivered the verdict on March 11. The full 28-page judgment, penned by Justice Farah Mahbub, was later published on the Supreme Court website on July 9. The ruling overturns an earlier High Court decision.
The case centered on Mahbub Morshed, who joined the judicial service in 1991. He voluntarily resigned in January 2011, after 19 years, while serving as an Additional District Judge. In 2015, Mr. Morshed applied for pension and gratuity payments based on his years of service.
His application was denied. Officials cited existing regulations, including Rule 300, Section 3 of the Bangladesh Service Rules. This rule states that resigning from government service means losing previous service time for pension calculations. They also referred to Section 9 of the Public Servants (Retirement) Act, 1974, which requires a minimum of 25 years of service for pension eligibility.
Mr. Morshed then filed a legal challenge in 2016, questioning the validity of these rules and the decision denying his pension. In March 2021, the High Court initially sided with Mr. Morshed. It declared the denial letter unlawful and instructed authorities to calculate and pay his pension within 90 days.
However, the State appealed this judgment. In October 2022, the Appellate Division allowed the State’s appeal to proceed and put the High Court’s order on hold.
Finally, on March 11 this year, the Appellate Division accepted the State’s appeal. It cancelled the High Court’s judgment, upholding the requirement for 25 years of service before resignation to qualify for pension benefits.
Additional Attorneys General Mohammed Arshadur Rauf and Aneek R. Haque represented the State during the hearings. Mr. Morshed argued his own case. Following the verdict, Mr. Morshed stated that he would decide on filing a review petition after obtaining a certified copy of the full decision.
