Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 990 (RAJ)

Ataur Rehman v. State of Rajasthan

2016-07-13

ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL

body2016
ORDER : Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. The petitioner was appointed as LDC in the Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakf (hereinafter referred to as 'the Wakf Board') vide order dated 27.01.1968. He was promoted on the post of UDC with effect from 01.04.1971 vide order dated 25.03.1971. Thereafter, he was officiating Office Superintendent with effect from 05.06.1991 and was confirmed as such with effect from 15.05.1992. Subsequently, he was promoted on the newly created post of Assistant Secretary vide order dated 20.10.1995. He superannuated from service on 30.04.2003 upon completion of 58 years of age. The petitioner has sought a direction to the respondents to pay him pension in lieu of his service rendered with respondent No.2/Wakf Board. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Wakf Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') empowers the Wakf Board to pass the Resolution and frame a policy for the benefit of its employees. He further contended that the Chairman of the Wakf Board had taken a decision on 04.01.1980 to grant pension and other benefits to its employees at par with the employees of the State Government. This Resolution had also been approved by the Wakf Board. It is, thus, incumbent upon the Wakf Board to grant pension to its employees, who have rendered service with the Wakf Board as the object for setting up of Wakf Board is to ensure the general well being of the destitute and needy. Therefore, the petitioner was legitimately expecting that he would be paid pension at par with the employees of the State Government. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents have contended that there is no provision under the Act wherein the employees of the Wakf Board are entitled to pension and the petitioner has been granted the retiral benefits including gratuity and contributory provident fund. In support of their submission, they have also relied upon the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Amzad Ali Khan v. Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakf [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.905/1986, decided on 05.07.1994]. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition. 5. Section 24 of the Act, which provides for appointment of officers and employees of the Wakf Board, is reproduced hereunder: "24. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition. 5. Section 24 of the Act, which provides for appointment of officers and employees of the Wakf Board, is reproduced hereunder: "24. Officers and other employees of the Board – (1) The Board shall have the assistance of such number of officers and other employees as may be necessary for the efficient performance of its functions under this Act, details thereof shall be determined by the Board in consultation with the State Government. (2) The appointment of officers and other employees, their term of office and conditions of service shall be such as may be provided by regulations." 6. It is manifest from reading of Section (2) of the Act that the appointment of employees and their terms and conditions of service shall be provided by regulations framed thereunder. The Wakf Board is stated to have merely taken a decision on 04.01.1980, but no regulations have been framed thereunder wherein provision for pension to its employees at par with the employees of the State Government has been provided. It is categorical stand of the respondents in their reply that no employee of the Wakf Board has been granted pension and in terms of the resolution dated 04.01.1980, the employees of the Wakf Board are subject to the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Funds Act, 1952. The employees of the Wakf Board are subject to the provident fund scheme and it is provided the benefits of contributory provident fund and no pension has been granted to any employee of the Wakf Board. It is also stated that earlier one Chhote Khan had been granted pension and another employee Amzad Ali Khan had sought similar benefit of pension which was declined him. He had preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.905/1986 for grant of pension at par with Chhote Khan. The coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 05.07.1994 while referring the provision of Waqf Act, 1954 and various regulations framed by the Wakf Board, held that an employee of Wakf Board is not entitled to claim pension. It has also been held that merely because the benefit has been wrongly granted to another employee that by itself shall not entitle another employee to similar benefit. This judgment is stated to have attained finality. It has also been held that merely because the benefit has been wrongly granted to another employee that by itself shall not entitle another employee to similar benefit. This judgment is stated to have attained finality. The respondents have also stated in their reply that the benefit granted to the family of the Chhote Khan has been withdrawn after the judgment in the case of Amzad Ali Khan. 7. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the case of the petitioner for grant of pension. In the result, the petition is dismissed.