JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition apart from other prayers, it has been claimed that the petitioner is entitled to get salary in the pay-scale of Legal Assistant in accordance with the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. 2. The petitioner was appointed on March 27, 1983 (Annexure-2) as Legal Assistant/Advisor in the Office of respondent No. 1, Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakfs (for the sake of brevity 'Wakf Board') for a period of one year on fixed remuneration of Rs. 600/- per month. The services of the petitioner were terminated on May 7/26, 1987 whereupon the petitioner filed a D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1353/1987 challenging the order of termination. The writ petition was allowed on January 5, 1988 and the order of termination was quashed as a result of the writ petition, petitioner was reinstated in service. The petitioner was confirmed with immediate effect vide order dated February 17, 1988 (Annexure-4). After confirmation, it is alleged by the petitioner that he made a verbal demand in the last week of April, 1988 for payment of salary in regular grade of Legal Assistant paid by Government of Rajasthan as all other employees of the Wakf Board were getting their salary in the regular grades which are paid by the Government of Rajasthan as per resolution of the Wakf Board dated May 21, 1974. By this resolution, the petitioner (sic Wakf Board) decided for grant of regular grade of Government employees to the employees of the Wakf Board. This resolution has been reproduced in para 12 of the petition. Thereafter, a notice for demand of justice dated May 9, 1988 (Annexure-6) was also given to the Wakf Board, but with no effect. 3. A preliminary objection has been raised by Shri G.S. Singhvi, learned counsel for the respondents that the Wakf Board is not instrumental of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is, therefore, not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The learned counsel cited several Sections of Wakf Act, 195 and Rajasthan Muslim Wakfs Regulations 1964 and stressed that the funds of the Wakf Board are not controlled by the Government and the Government neither given any grant nor makes available the finance to the Board. The learned counsel cited several Sections of Wakf Act, 195 and Rajasthan Muslim Wakfs Regulations 1964 and stressed that the funds of the Wakf Board are not controlled by the Government and the Government neither given any grant nor makes available the finance to the Board. It does not have any control in the day to day functioning of the Wakf Board and is, therefore, not even an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Government appoints only Secretary and Members of the Wakf Board the Wakf Board does not carry out any sovereign functions or constitutional obligation of the Government. It is submitted that the Wakf Board has been created only with a view to look after the charitable properties which is not a State function. The learned counsel cited example of Nathdwara temple Act in support of his contention. It is also submitted that Corporations are created by Government to perform public functions which are otherwise performed by the State and cited examples of Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Food Corporation of India, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation etc. The learned counsel placed reliance on Ishaq Mohammad etc. v. Jaipur Metals & Electricals Ltd. ( 1988 (1) RLR 157 ) in which tests circumstances for determining whether a Corporation Society/Company is an instrumentality of State have been discussed in details. The learned counsel also referred to Mohd. Abbas Khan v. Bal Bhavan Board, New Delhi & ors. ( 1981 (3) SLR 407 in which Delhi High Court held that Bal Bhavan and National Children's Museum, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 was an instrumentality of State, as the society was established by a resolution of the Union of India and the Board consists of Chairman and four representatives of the Government of India and also some other members of other authorities. The Rules and Regulations are also made by the Board of Management, but are to be subject to approval of the Government of India. In Sukhdev Singh and ors. v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvansbi and Anr. ( AIR 1975 SC 1331 ) , it was held by the Apex Court that Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Life Insurance Corporation and Industrial Finance Corporation are 'authorities' within Article 12 as Rules and Regulations framed by these statutory Corporations have force of law and that these Corporations are carrying on business of public importance. ( AIR 1975 SC 1331 ) , it was held by the Apex Court that Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Life Insurance Corporation and Industrial Finance Corporation are 'authorities' within Article 12 as Rules and Regulations framed by these statutory Corporations have force of law and that these Corporations are carrying on business of public importance. 4. It is contended by Shri A.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner that it is not necessary that Wakf Board/any Corporation may be covered by Article 12 only when the funds are contributed by the Government, it is pointed out that members of the Wakf Board and Secretary of the Wakf Board are appointed by Government and Secretary is generally a RAS Officer who comes on deputation from the State Government. The Chairman is elected by the members. The Wakf Board can be superseded by the State. The Wakf Board has been created to deal with charitable properties and it recovers rent from such property & appoints persons to look after such properties. Thus, it has a monopoly status so far as dealing with the charitable properties is concerned. These are public functions which otherwise would have been performed by the State itself, but a statutory body has been created to look after such functions. The Wakf Board is also invested with the sovereign powers in as much as it is authorised to make Rules and Regulations and to enforce the same as is evident from Section 68 of the Act of 1954. Under this Section, the Wakf Board has made Rajasthan Muslim Wakf Regulations, 1964 which are having statutory force. It has perpetual succession and a common seal. Thus, it comes within the definition of other authorities as mentioned in Article 12 of the Constitution. When the members and the Secretary of the Wakf Board are appointed under Section 21 (1) of the Act, 1954 such appointments are required to be notified by the State Government in the official Gazette. As per Section 18 of the Act, 1954, Chairman and members can be removed by the State Government by notification in official Gazette. Wakf Commissioner who is the Chief Executive Officer of the Wakf Board is also appointed by the State Government. As per Section 18 of the Act, 1954, Chairman and members can be removed by the State Government by notification in official Gazette. Wakf Commissioner who is the Chief Executive Officer of the Wakf Board is also appointed by the State Government. As per Section 15, the Wakf Board is to insure that income and other property of the Wakf are applied to the objects and for the purposes for which that Wakf was created and to maintain a record containing information relating to the origin, income, object and beneficiaries of every Wakf. 5. From the provisions discussed above, it is clear that the Wakf Board is created by a statute and it has monopoly to perform certain functions which could have been otherwise performed by State Government alone. The learned counsel for the respondents cited example of Nathdwara Temple Act 1959 which was enacted to save the interest of the temple at Nathdwara. In Mohd. Yarnin v. State of Raj. & ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition 217/85) decided on October 29, 1986 , the Board constituted by the State Government to maintain the properties and affairs of the temple at Nathdwara was held to be an instrumentality/agency of the State and equated with the department of the State for carrying out functions under the above mentioned Act. Under Section 66 of the Wakf Act, 1954 the servants of the Wakf Board are public servants within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 64, State Government has power to supersede the Wakf Board, under Section 62 the Central Government has power to issue any direction to the Wakf Board and similar powers are exercised by State Government under Section 63. Under Section 67 State Government has powers as per rules for the Wakf Board and under Section 68, regulations can be framed by the Wakf Board only after the same are sanctioned by the State Government. Under Section 65, no action can be taken against the employee of the Wakf Board, if it is done in good faith. There is Department for Wakf in the State and there is always a Minister, who looks after this department. Audit of the Accounts of Wakf Board is done by the State Government. Section 53 provides that amount certified to be due shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. There is Department for Wakf in the State and there is always a Minister, who looks after this department. Audit of the Accounts of Wakf Board is done by the State Government. Section 53 provides that amount certified to be due shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. In Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi ( AIR 1981 SC 487 ) , it was held by the Supreme Court that where a Corporation or Society was an instrumentality or agency of Government, it must be held to be an authority under Article 12 and hence subject to the same basic obligation to obey the fundamental rights as the Government. In the present case even though the Wakf Board has been given power to maintain and conduct its business, the rules are framed by the Government and regulations are framed by the Wakf Board with prior sanction of the Government. The manner of appointment of the Members, Secretary, Chairman etc. of the Wakf Board is also set out in the Act, 1954. The accounts of the Wakf Board are to be audited by the Government. It may also be mentioned that the Wakf Board was held to be amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court while deciding case of Radhakrishsn v. State of Rajasthan (1966 RLW 582) . In Mohd. Dilawar Ali v. Andhra Pradeah Muslim Wakf Board and ors. ( AIR 1967 AP 291 ) also the Wakf Board was held to be amenable to writ jurisdiction while considering the question of terminating of services of an employee of the said Board. Similarly this petitioner as stated above, hid earlier filed D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1358/87 when his services were terminated and the Wakf Board was held to be amenable to writ jurisdiction in as much as the petition was allowed and the impugned order by which the services of the petitioner were terminated, was quashed and set aside. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the Wakf Board comes within purview of 'other authorities' within meaning of Article 12 and is amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. 6. It is contended by Shri A.K. Sharma, that the petitioner has been appointed as Legal Assistant/Advisor on consolidated salary of Rs. 600/- per month. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the Wakf Board comes within purview of 'other authorities' within meaning of Article 12 and is amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. 6. It is contended by Shri A.K. Sharma, that the petitioner has been appointed as Legal Assistant/Advisor on consolidated salary of Rs. 600/- per month. It is pointed out that not only he does not do the work of a Legal Assistant, but also appears in the Court of Estate Officer on behalf of the Wakf Board where several cases are pending. He also contacts other Advocates who appear in cases pending in High Court and in other Courts. He also gives opinions on matters referred to him. Thus, he is not only performing the work as a Legal Assistant, but even more than that by appearing in the Court of Estate Officer and by also perusing the cases pending in other Courts which are represented by different Advocates. As per resolution of the Wakf Board dated May 22, 1974 of the employees of the Wakf Board are given the same salary as is given to similarly situated persons serving in Government oi Rajasthan. Therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to receive the salary paid to Legal Assistant. 7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that there is no encadered post of Legal Assistant/Advisor. It is also submitted that there is no resolution of the Board creating post of Legal Assistant/Advisor. It is submitted that the order dated February 17, 1988 (Annexure-29) confirming the service of the petitioner was manipulated by him. It is also pointed out that petitioner is a Legal Practitioner and cannot possibly be employed and that his work is not identical to that of Legal-Assistant employed in Government of Rajasthan. 8. There is no doubt that the petitioner has been confirmed as Legal Assistant/Legal Advisor vide Annexure-4 and it makes no difference whether the post is encadered or not. Once the respondents have appointed the petitioner and even confirmed him, his appointment having been also upheld by the Court, the respondents cannot be permitted to attack their own action. 8. There is no doubt that the petitioner has been confirmed as Legal Assistant/Legal Advisor vide Annexure-4 and it makes no difference whether the post is encadered or not. Once the respondents have appointed the petitioner and even confirmed him, his appointment having been also upheld by the Court, the respondents cannot be permitted to attack their own action. A reference in this respect may be made to State of U. P. v. Chandra Mohan Nigam and Ors., ( 1977 (4) SCC 345 ) in which it was held by the Apex Court that an authority cannot attack its own order as a respondent to the writ petition. In State of Assam and anr. v. Raghava Rajgopalachari (1972 SLR 44) while expressing the same view, it was held by the Apex Court that the authority cannot attack its own order as a respondent. Mere bald denial on behalf of the respondents that he is not performing the similar duties as performed by the Legal Assistants employed in Government of Rajasthan will have no force. Annexure-3 dated February 6, 1988 is an order sent to petitioner in which he has been directed to perform certain functions which goes to show that he is performing the duties as Legal-Assistant/Advisor as directed by the respondents from time to time. In this order, it is also mentioned that the petitioner shall attend the High Court cases also. Annexure-5 dated May 6, 1988 is progress report of the cases in High Court submitted by the petitioner. In para 11 of the rejoinder the order of the Chairman of the Wakf Board has been extracted which shows that since the Wakf Board has no separate rules for T.A. and other emoluments, pension, gratuity etc. rules of the State Government are to be applicable to the employees of the Wakf Board. Annexure 6A produced with rejoinder is an order dated April 28, 1981 is ued by the Secretary of the Wakf Board to the petitioner called for the report of all the cases pending in High Court. Annexure-7 is certain enquiries and reports submitted by the petitioner on certain legal matters referred to him. Annexure-8 dated January 4, 1980 is the order by which the employees of the Wakf Board are to be given retirement benefit of pension, gratuity etc. as is given to employees of Government of Rajasthan. Annexure-7 is certain enquiries and reports submitted by the petitioner on certain legal matters referred to him. Annexure-8 dated January 4, 1980 is the order by which the employees of the Wakf Board are to be given retirement benefit of pension, gratuity etc. as is given to employees of Government of Rajasthan. Annexure 8-A is a similar order regarding giving of Dearness Allowance to the employees of the Wakf Board. Annexure-9 is regarding an enquiry and opinion given by the petitioner regarding on legal matter referred to him Annexure-10 dated December 20, 1989 is directions to petitioner to attend and plead cases in the Court of Estate Officer (Wakf) Jaipur and also attend the High Court for two days in a week. Annexure-11 dated December 21, 1989 is copy of order-sheet in which, it has been mentioned that all the employees of the Beard are governed by the pay-scale of the State Government while the petitioner has not yet been given this scale. Thereafter, the pay-scale paid to Legal Assistant/Advisor in Government is mentioned and this has been submitted for orders to the Secretary of the Board. On this, it seems no orders have not (sic) yet been passed. Thus, it is clear from all the Annexures referred to above that petitioner does perform work of a Legal Assistant, gives opinion on legal problems referred to him and also appears in Court of Estate Officer and attend the cases pending in High Court. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner is a Legal Practitioner and is not entitled to be employed is outside the scope of this writ petition and this Court is not concerned with this aspect of the matter in the present writ petition which concerns Bar Council of Rajasthan as pointed out by the learned counsel himself. I, therefore, do not find any reason to come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not performing same duties or his nature of work is not same as that of Legal Assistant employed in Government of Rajasthan. On the contrary, it can be said that he is performing more duties/work than is performed by Legal Assistant in Government of Rajasthan. The Wakf Board is giving same scale of wages to its employees which is paid to similarly situated persons employed in Government of Rajasthan and rules of T. A., D A., Pension, Gratuity etc. On the contrary, it can be said that he is performing more duties/work than is performed by Legal Assistant in Government of Rajasthan. The Wakf Board is giving same scale of wages to its employees which is paid to similarly situated persons employed in Government of Rajasthan and rules of T. A., D A., Pension, Gratuity etc. have also been made applicable to the employees of the Wakf Board. In Randhir Singh v. Union of India & ors. ( AIR 1982 SC 879 ) while discussing the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' it was observed by the Apex Court that while construing Articles 14 and 16 in the light of preamble and Article 39(d), it is clear that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is deducible from these Articles and may be properly applied to cases of unequal scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classification though those drawing the different scales of pay do identical work under the same employer. 9. In Jaipal & ors. v. State of Haryana and ors. (citation missing), similar view was expressed by the Apex Court. In this case even though employer is different, but the Wakf Board itself passed resolution and has given similar emoluments as are paid by Government of Rajasthan. There is, therefore, no reason why the similar scale of salary as is paid to the Legal Assistant in Government of Rajasthan be not paid to the petitioner. 10. It was also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is not permitted to enter the office and do the work and he has been sending reports under certificate of posting. However, the learned counsel for the respondents denied this allegation and two affidavits have been filed of persons against whom allegations were made by the petitioner that they had stopped him from entering the office under instructions from the respondents. Since this allegation has been denied, I do not find it necessary to pass any orders regearing this matter and expect the respondents to conduct themselves as dignified employers and will allow the petitioner to work peacefully while he continues to be in their employment. 11. Since this allegation has been denied, I do not find it necessary to pass any orders regearing this matter and expect the respondents to conduct themselves as dignified employers and will allow the petitioner to work peacefully while he continues to be in their employment. 11. It is, therefore, directed that the petitioner shall be given salary in the regular pay scale of Legal Assistant paid by Government of Rajasthan to Legal Assistants employed by it with effect from date of filing of this writ petition. The payment of arrears shall be made to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of this order. 12. The writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs.Petition Allowed. *******