ORDER A.S. Bopanna, J. 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to constitute a Fund called “Karnataka Registered Clerks’ Welfare Fund” for payment of retirement benefits, etc. , to the Registered Clerks of Advocates in the State of Karnataka, in terms of Section 27 of the Karnataka Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1983. 2. I have heard Sri B.M. Arun, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-Association, Sri H.M. Manjunath, learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent and Sri Ashok R. Kalyanshetty, learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent. 3. The case put forth by the petitioner is that the petitioner is an Association of the State Level Advocates’ Clerks and is registered with the Registrar of Societies, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore. The Advocates, Vakils, Barristers and Pleaders in turn engaged the services of persons to work under them as Clerks. Such of those Clerks who have been working under the Advocates are said to be the members of the said Association. Since such of those Clerks are engaged by the Advocates, there are no codified service conditions and as such, the Advocates Clerks are put to hardship in the event of they suffering illness or at the time of retirement. As such, the petitioner is before this Court stating that Section 27 of the Karnataka Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity) makes it mandatory for the State Government to constitute a Fund called the “Karnataka Registered Clerks’ Welfare Fund”. 4. The grievance of the petitioner-Association is that, though the said Act has received the assent of the Governor and has come into force on 10-1-1985, till now such a Registered Clerks Welfare Fund has not been constituted by the Government. This Court on noticing the case made out by the petitioner in this petition had directed notice to the respondents. At the outset, what requires to be noticed is that the respondents have not objected to the prayer which has been made by the petitioner in this petition. This Court on noticing the case made out by the petitioner in this petition had directed notice to the respondents. At the outset, what requires to be noticed is that the respondents have not objected to the prayer which has been made by the petitioner in this petition. It is in that context, even though the petitioner has raised the ground that under Articles 41 and 42 of the Directive Principles of the State Policy, the duty is cast on the first respondent to make effective provision insofar as it relates to right to work and to public assistance in certain cases, the same need not be adverted to in detail. The first respondent in fact has realised that there is an obligation under Section 27 of the said Act to constitute such Welfare Fund but has only explained the procedural aspect in doing so. Therefore, in order to consider these aspects of the matter, the sequence of events that have followed in this petition alone is sufficient to be noticed to find out the nature of the order to be passed in this petition. 5. At the first instance, after notice was served on the first respondent, the Secretary to the Government, Law, Justice and Human Rights Department, by communication No. LAW 208 LCL 2006(P) has intimated the learned Government Advocate representing the first respondent that in view of the said provision contained in Section 27 of the Act, the State Government after getting the details from the concerned, would work out modalities of constituting such Fund and framing Rules for the said purpose. It is also stated that in that connection, the Government is also required to examine the administrative and financial aspects of such proposal. The said communication is addressed during the month of November, 2006. The same was filed before this Court by a memo dated 28-11-2006. This Court after noticing the same and also the provisions contained in Section 27 of the Act, by its order dated 28-11-2006 had observed that though 21 years have elapsed after coming into force of the Act, the State Government has not taken any action to constitute the Fund. It was also stated that twenty one long years taken by the State Government cannot be said to be a reasonable period and as such opportunity was granted to take further instructions. 6. It was also stated that twenty one long years taken by the State Government cannot be said to be a reasonable period and as such opportunity was granted to take further instructions. 6. This petition has been pending before this Court for more than two and half years and on this Court insisting on the learned Government Advocate to secure details with regard to the progress made in the matter, the learned Government Advocate has filed an affidavit dated 15-4-2008, sworn to by the Under Secretary, Department of Law, Justice and Human Rights. A perusal of the affidavit would indicate the steps which have been taken by the Government in this regard and along with the affidavit, the communication exchanged between the State Government and the Bar Council are also produced. The meeting notices and the proceedings for the meetings at Annexures-R4 and R6 with the affidavit indicate that the Registrar General of the High Court and the Chairman, Bar Council have also participated and deliberated. One other Annexure produced along with the affidavit at Annexure “R11” would indicate that Draft Rules in respect of the constitution of the Welfare Fund is also formulated. The letter dated 2-4-2008 at Annexure-R16 would indicate that the Karnataka State Bar Council has assured the State Government of all assistance in administering the Fund except for the financial commitment. These aspects of the matter would indicate that the State Government after accepting its obligation to form such a scheme has already proceeded in that direction. However, the only concern of the Government appears to be regarding the mobilisation of funds for notifying such a Welfare Fund since according to them, the Karnataka State Bar Council has not indicated the manner in which the funds would be mobilised. Since the only issue before notifying the Welfare Fund being about the fund to be mobilised, the very provision in the Act requires to be noticed. Section 27 of the Act, reads as hereunder: “27. Registered Clerks Welfare Fund (1) Subject to such rules as may be prescribed by it, the State Government shall constitute a fund called the Karnataka Registered Clerks’ Welfare Fund for payment of retirement benefits to the registered clerks in the State. Section 27 of the Act, reads as hereunder: “27. Registered Clerks Welfare Fund (1) Subject to such rules as may be prescribed by it, the State Government shall constitute a fund called the Karnataka Registered Clerks’ Welfare Fund for payment of retirement benefits to the registered clerks in the State. (2) There shall be credited to the Fund- (a) any grant that may be made by the State Government; and (b) any donation or contribution made to the fund by the Bar Council of India, Bar Council, any Bar Association, any association or authority, institution, any Advocate or any other person. (3) The State Government shall constitute a committee for the administration of the Fund. (4) The State Government may make rules to provide for all matters relating to the Fund including its membership and administration and the conditions subject to which payment from the Fund shall be made.” 7. A perusal of sub-section (1) to Section 27 would indicate that the word “shall” has been employed which indicates that there is an obligation on the State Government to constitute a Fund called the “Karnataka Registered Clerks’ Welfare Fund”. Insofar as the amount to be credited to the fund the details are contained in sub-section (2), wherein sub-clause (a) states that the grant is to be made by the State Government and sub-clause (b) states that the donation or contribution to the Fund to be made by different bodies which includes the Bar Council, Bar Association and also the Advocates or any other person. This would indicate that when the State Government constitutes the Welfare Fund and notifies the same, at the first instance, what is required to be provided is the grant to be made by the Government. The question of any person including the Bar Council donating or contributing to the said Fund would arise only after such a Fund is constituted and notified, since no person would come forward to donate or contribute to a fund which is not yet in existence and therefore, at this juncture, it would not be appropriate for the State Government to insist on the Bar Council to indicate the manner in which it would Fund the scheme that is to be formulated. That apart, even insofar as the mobilisation of the amounts to constitute the Fund, it is for the State Government to formulate the Rules in the manner the funds are to be mobilised by the Bar Council and pursuant thereto, the Bar Council will proceed in accordance with the Rules to be notified by the Government. 8. While stating so, what requires to be also noticed is that similar funds have been notified by the State Government of Andhra Pradesh, State Government of Kerala and also the State Government of Tamil Nadu. The copies of the Rules framed by the respective Governments would indicate the manner in which the funds are to be mobilised and as such, it would be open for the State Government to adopt such methods as indicated in the said Rules. One of the manners indicated therein is for providing the Bar Council with the Clerks Welfare Fund Stamps, which would be affixed to the vakalathnama that would be filed by the Advocates in the manner what is being done in the case of Advocates Welfare Fund and this is an aspect which is to be considered by the State Government and such method of distribution of the Welfare Fund Stamps is to be assigned to the Bar Council by the State Government. 9. Therefore, when such models of the Welfare Fund Rules formulated by the other Governments are available which indicate the manner in which the State Government could mobilise the funds for constituting such a Welfare Fund, the State Government cannot wriggle out of its responsibility by merely stating that the Bar Council has not responded positively with regard to the mobilisation of the amounts to constitute the Fund. That apart, even the Draft Rules as well as the Rules framed by the other State Governments would also indicate with regard to the Group Insurance and other policies which could be floated by the Fund for the benefit of the members of such Fund which are all aspects regarding which the Rules will have to be provided by the Government. Therefore, once the Government formulates the Rules, notifies the same and constitutes the Fund for the initial starting of the Fund, the grant as indicated in Section 27(2)(a) is provided by the Government and the manner of mobilisation would thereafter be provided under the Rules. 10. Therefore, once the Government formulates the Rules, notifies the same and constitutes the Fund for the initial starting of the Fund, the grant as indicated in Section 27(2)(a) is provided by the Government and the manner of mobilisation would thereafter be provided under the Rules. 10. One other aspect which also requires to be noticed as rightly pointed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that Section 28 of the Act itself makes it clear that the Bar Council with the previous approval of the State Government could formulate the Rules in respect of all other provisions of the Act, but in so far as Section 27, it is exclusive domain of the State Government to formulate and notify the Rules and as such, the State Government would have to formulate the Rules and notify the same. 11. As already noticed, the stand taken by the first respondent from the inception of this petition till today when the affidavit was filed before this Court, the State Government has indicated that the Fund requires to be notified as indicated in the Act, but the modalities are being formulated. Further, as noticed above, since sufficient time has elapsed and since the State Government has taken steps to formulate the Rules and has made some progress, all that requires to be ordered in this petition is to direct the first respondent to complete the formalities within a time frame by formulating the Rules in consultation or otherwise with the Bar Council and notify the same. 12. While fixing the time frame, this Court apart from noticing that this petition has been pending before this Court from the year 2005, also notices that vide order dated 28-11 -2006 this Court had remarked that lapse of 21 years is a long period. Therefore, keeping all these aspects in view, the appropriate time frame that could be granted in the matter is the outer limit of six months from today. 13. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to constitute a fund called the “Karnataka Registered Clerk’s Welfare Fund” as contemplated under Section 27 of the Karnataka Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1983 and notify the Rules as expeditiously as possible, but not later than six months from today. No order as to costs.