Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
S.C. SHARMA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Mohammed Ajaz Ali Khan - Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana and Ors. - Respondents
W.P. No. 28260 of 2019
Decided On : 29-10-2021
Welfare Fund - Advocates - Telangana Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 1987, Section 15(1) - The court discussed the provisions of Section 15(1) of the Telangana Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 1987, and its amendments in 1998 and 2006. The court highlighted the legislative intent behind the age limit for eligibility to the Fund and upheld the constitutionality of Section 15(1).
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a practicing Advocate, sought a declaration that sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Telangana Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 1987 is ultra vires and unconstitutional. He also sought admission to the Telangana Advocates' Welfare Fund. The petitioner's eligibility for the Fund was contested based on his age and periods of practice suspension.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's application for membership of the Fund was rightly rejected as he did not meet the age eligibility criteria prescribed by the amended Section 15(1) of the Act. The court upheld the decision of the Welfare Fund Committee and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's eligibility for membership of the Telangana Advocates' Welfare Fund, the constitutionality of Section 15(1) of the Act, and the classification of Advocates based on age and practice history.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the legislative intent behind the age limit for eligibility to the Fund was to distinguish Advocates who joined the profession directly from law school without employment with terminal benefits. The court upheld the constitutionality of Section 15(1) based on this classification.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. Any pending miscellaneous petitions were also dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by a practicing Advocate of this Court-Mohammed Ajaz Ali Khan under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a declaration that sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Telangana Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 1987 is ultra vires and unconstitutional. Further prayer made is for a direction to the respondents, more particularly, respondent No.2 to admit the petitioner as a member of Telangana Advocates' Welfare Fund.
2. It is stated that petitioner was enrolled as an Advocate on 07.07.1992. As his practice was not good and as he got an opportunity to go abroad, petitioner went to Riyadh in Saudi Arabia. In this connection, on 08.11.1994 he voluntarily suspended his practice where after Bar Council gave him permission to go abroad.
3. On 30.11.1999, petitioner resumed his legal practice. But after a short while, on 15.04.2000 he again suspended his practice and went to Riyadh in Saudi Arabia as his employer called him again.
4. However, in the year 2007, petitioner permanently came back to India. He applied for and was granted permission by the Bar Council on 30.04.2007 to resume his legal practice.
5. According to the petitioner, the then Government of Andhra Pradesh had imposed restriction on the Advocates who had not paid the welfare fund at the age of 35 years. Petitioner being above 35 years of age was not allowed to become a member of the Welfare Fund. On the one hand petitioner has to contribute to the Welfare Fund but on the other hand he is denied the benefit of welfare fund being above 35 years of age.
6. Petitioner approached the Chairman of the Bar Council of the State of Telangana by submitting appeal on 22.08.2019 to permit him to pay the welfare amount of Rs. 30,000.00 as by then he was 64 years of age, his date of birth being 19.12.1954. Secretary of the Telangana Bar Council informed the petitioner, vide letter dated 15.11.2019, that petitioner had suspended his practice as on the date of amendment which restricted his admission to the Welfare Fund. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled for admission as a member of Telangana Advocates' Welfare Fund.
7. Petitioner has contended that depriving him from the benefit of the Welfare Fund, but at the same time compelling him to contribute to the Welfare Fund is arbitrary, unreasonable and unconstitutional. The amendment is contrary to the very object of the principal Act. Such restriction is discriminatory as it debars Advocates who have crossed the age of 35 years from the benefit of the Welfare Fund. Petitioner has also contended that he does not come within the prohibition of Section 15(a) of the Telangana Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 1987 (briefly, 'the Act' hereinafter) as he is not a retired Government servant or one who has retired from private service in India on attaining the age of superannuation or on voluntary retirement.
8. In the above backdrop, petitioner has preferred the present writ petition seeking the reliefs as indicated above.
9. Respondent No. 2 i.e., Bar Council of Telangana has filed counter-affidavit through Smt. N. Renuka, its Secretary. She has stated that petitioner got enrolled as an Advocate on 07.07.1992, but suspended his practice from 08.11.1994 and had gone to work in Saudi Arabia. He resumed practice on 30.11.1999 after returning to India. He again got his practice suspended on 15.04.2000 and went to work in Saudi Arabia. Finally he returned to India and resumed practice on 30.04.2007.
10. Deponent has referred to Section 15(1) of the Act which provides that every Advocate practicing in any Court in the State and being a member of a Bar Association recognized by the Bar Council, may apply to the committee for admission as a member of the Fund, in such form as prescribed. It is stated that Section 15(1) of the Act was amended in the year 1998. Post amendment the said provision provided that every Advocate below the age of 65 years practicing in any Court in the State and being a memb
The legislative intent behind the age limit for eligibility to the Fund was to distinguish Advocates who joined the profession directly from law school without employment with terminal benefits, and ....
Point of Law : Legal maxim “Expressio unius est exclusion alterius” meaning thereby that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and....
Voluntary surrender of sanad does not extinguish the right to resume practice, as the right to practice law is constitutionally protected.
The right to practice law as an advocate is a statutory privilege contingent upon meeting specific legal qualifications, not an absolute fundamental right.
scheme of the Advocates Act, 1961 as also the various Bar Council Rules and Regulations give primacy to the place of practice and not residence. Governmental policies are amenable to judicial review ....
constitutional right - Right of Advocates/Legal practitioners to represent either parties before Tribunal/Appellate tribunals - Constitutional right guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution and le....
The court upheld the constitutionality of age limits in judicial recruitment rules, affirming that such regulations fall within the policy-making authority of the rule makers.
Pension benefits for Members (Judicial) of the Railway Claims Tribunal are governed strictly by applicable statutory rules, and prior legal practice cannot be included as qualifying service.
Rule 7 of the Bar Council, prohibiting former judicial officers from practicing for two years in prior jurisdiction, is a reasonable restriction in public interest under Article 19(1)(g) of the Const....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
