LUCKY ZAMAN Vs. BANGLADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Writ Petition a Rule Nisi was issued under Article 102 of the Constitution of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the notice contained in Memo No. 140

(2.) Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was born on 06.06.1981 and she joined the service on 08.01.2009 as a sweeper in the Public Works Department, under the Ministry of Works, Government of Bangladesh and she will reach the age of retirement on 05.06.2040. It is stated that the House No.99/26 China Building, Azimpur, Dhaka was allotted by an office order dated 10.04.2004 in the name of K.M. Kamruzzaman, husband of the petitioner and the house was handed over to him on 10.05.2004 (Annexure ''A''&''A-1''). The husband of the petitioner has been transferred by an office order dated 26.06.2014 from Dhaka to Jhalakathi. The petitioner then filed an application on 13.10.2014 to the Respondent No. 2 for allotment of the said house No. 99/26, China Building, Azimpur, Dhaka, in her name which was earlier allotted in the name of her husband (Annexure-B-1). The application has been duly received by the office of the Respondent No. 2. But the said respondent did not pay any attention to the said application. Rather during pendency of the said application the Respondent No. 3 issued an official order dated 05.11.2014 allotting House No, 99/6 and 12 of China Building, Azimpur to the petitioner. On the same date the Respondent No. 3 issued another official order allotting House No. 99/26 of the same building (the disputed house) to one Md. Selim Sharif who was earlier allocated the House No. 99/6 and 12 of the same building (Annexure-''C''&''C-1''). On receipt of the information about the allotment of House No.99/26 of the China Building in the name of one Md. Selim Sharif, the petitioner made 2 (Two) representations dated 11.11.2014 and 09.12.2014 for reviewing the decision for allotment of the House No.99/26 of the building in favour of the petitioner but the Respondents did not pay any attention to the said representations of the petitioner till date (Annexure-''D''&''D-1''). While the petitioner was waiting for positive response of the said representations to the utter dismay to the petitioner, the Respondent No. 3 has issued the impugned notice contained in Memo No 140

(3.) Mr. Md. Motiur Rahaman, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is eligible and qualified to get allotment of accommodation of House No. 99/26 of the China Building previously allocated to her husband but later the allotment has been cancelled because of transfer of her husband from Dhaka to Jhalokathi and as the wife, the petitioner has legitimate expectation to get allotment of the said accommodation. He further submits that earlier a wife has been given allotment of her husband's allotted accommodation during her husband's life time and before retirement from the service, which is a regular practice and thus the petitioner is entitled to get allotment of House No. 99/26 of the building in place of prior allotment in the name of her husband. By making the aforesaid submissions, the learned Advocate for the petitioner prays for making the absolute.