JUDGMENT Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—By filing instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to declare the suspension of the membership of the petitioner as wrong, illegal, void and ab initio and he may also be declared entitled to all the benefits of membership and his claim be also allowed with interest @ 16% per annum. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and carefully scanned the entire material made available to me. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is designated Senior Advocate, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur and he is the member of the Rajasthan Advocate Welfare Fund w.e.f. 6.5.1991. He is depositing his membership fee every year regularly which is specific clear from the letter dated 7.4.1997 issued by the Rajasthan Advocate Welfare Fund. During the year 2006, the petitioner met with a serious accident thereby suffered head injury and he was treated as an indoor patient in Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital, Jaipur and he remained in the aforesaid hospital as an indoor patient from 12.3.2006 to 14.3.2006 and 21.3.2006 to 7.4.2006. He submitted medical bill to the Bar Council through President on 24.5.2006 interalia ex-gratia payment to the extent of Rs. 1,08,516/-. Thereafter, he came to know that reimbursement of his medical bill could not be accepted because of his membership stands suspended but till today he has not received any notice in this regard. By letter dated 15.1.2008 the petitioner sought information regarding termination of his membership along-with certified copy of the dues deposited by him. On 16.11.2006 the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 12,460/- by way of Demand Draft which has been received by the Trustee Committee. He submits that the suspension of the petitioner is not valid since no notice of suspension was ever given by the Bar Council or the Trust Committee to him nor the copy of the suspension order has been supplied to him till today in spite of written request made by him on 15.1.2004 (vide Annex. 4). In view of this legal position the suspension of membership of the petitioner does not survive and he will be deemed to be continuing as a regular member without any break in his membership. 4. 4). In view of this legal position the suspension of membership of the petitioner does not survive and he will be deemed to be continuing as a regular member without any break in his membership. 4. Learned counsel further submits that when nothing was done then he filed an appeal/representation before the respondents on 5.8.2008 in which the respondent No. 2 had given a reply informing the petitioner that the matter has been placed before the General House in its meeting dated 1.3.2009, to be placed in the next General Meeting. Lastly, he submits that the petitioner is being denied of his benefits of his membership for no fault of his, as is apparent from the above mentioned facts and he requires to be given ex-gratia payment as also other benefits without any delay, since his suspension was nonest, illegal and void. 5. Mr. Amod Kasliwal, learned counsel for the respondents has seriously opposed the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that as per Section 25(a) of the Rajasthan Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987 (for short `the Act of 1987'), the petitioner is entitled only for Rs. 20,000/- and not more than that. Section 25 of the Act of 1987 is relevant, which is reproduced hereunder: "25. Ex-gratia grant to a member of the Fund- (1) The Trustee Committee, on an application submitted to it, and after being satisfied about the genuineness of the claim, may allow ex gratia grant to a member from the fund- (a) in the case of hospital involving a major surgical operation; or (b) if he is suffering from tuberculosis, leprosy, paralysis, cancer, unsoundness of mind or from such other serious diseases or disabilities. (2) The grant so allowed shall not exceed a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in cases falling under clause (a) and Rs. 50,000/- in cases falling under clause (b): Provided that the claim shall not be more than once in a period of five years." 6. From a bare perusal of the facts of the case, in my considered view the case of the petitioner comes under the provisions of sub-section (a) of Section 25 of the Act of 1987 and in view of this sub-section, the petitioner is entitled only for Rs. 20,000/- as an ex-gratia amount. 7. In the result this writ petition is partly allowed. 20,000/- as an ex-gratia amount. 7. In the result this writ petition is partly allowed. The suspension of the membership of the petitioner was wrong and illegal and hence revoked. The respondent No. 2 is directed to make payment of ex-gratia in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the petitioner forthwith. No order as to costs.