The Wing Welfare Fund and the Verbal Promise
You are the cadet-in-charge of a wing welfare fund holding PKR 180,000, collected as voluntary sadaqat and held in trust for cadets in need. Three requests sit on your desk. (i) PKR 90,000 towards a cadet's father's surgery; the family declares income of PKR 45,000 a month with four dependants and has attached hospital estimates. (ii) PKR 60,000 for a batch farewell dinner at a hotel. (iii) PKR 40,000 for a cadet whose motorcycle was stolen; no police report, no receipts, and his account of the theft has changed twice. Your predecessor - a senior cadet, and a close friend - has already told the first family verbally that the full PKR 90,000 is approved, and presses you to release it today without the wing commander's countersignature 'because the paperwork takes a week and the surgery is on Friday'. The fund's written rules require two signatories and a receipt for any payment above PKR 25,000.
1. Decide what to do about the PKR 90,000 request. Give the sequence of actions and the reasoning behind each.
Read the worked answer
Decide: release it - through the correct route, fast - not outside the route.
Sequence:
- Today: tell the family the payment is being processed and give them a date. Silence would be the cruellest option; a promise already exists and must not be left hanging.
- Escalate in parallel, not in series. Take the file personally to the wing commander with a one-page note: documents attached, surgery date, fund balance, and the single line 'verbal commitment already made by my predecessor'. The week-long delay is in the paperwork, not in the requirement - a countersignature can be obtained in an hour if someone walks it.
- If the second signatory is genuinely unavailable, ask the commander to authorise an advance of the hospital's estimated amount directly to the hospital, with the formal release to follow. Money goes to the bill, not to a hand.
- Do not pay from your own pocket or from a batch fund. That solves Friday and destroys the audit trail.
Governing principle: the fund is an amanah - a trust. The rules protecting it are not bureaucracy; they are the reason a cadet's donation can be given again next year. The meritorious claim does not suspend the procedure.
2. How do you answer your senior friend, face to face, without either breaking the rule or destroying the relationship?
Read the worked answer
Say yes to the outcome, no to the method - and say it early, in private, in one conversation.
What to say:
- Acknowledge the good intention first: he committed to a family in genuine distress; that instinct was right and you are not going to reverse it.
- Separate the two issues: 'The 90,000 is going out. What I cannot do is put my single signature on it and backdate a receipt. If the audit catches that, the fund gets frozen and the next family gets nothing.'
- Offer him a role: ask him to be the one who walks the file to the wing commander with you. He keeps his promise and his standing, and the process is intact.
- Do not moralise, and do not mention it to anyone else. The point is the safeguard, not his embarrassment.
If he insists, the answer is a plain no, repeated once, and an offer to escalate the disagreement to the wing commander together. Loyalty to a friend is a virtue; loyalty that converts a trust into a private purse is not loyalty, it is complicity - and adl (fairness) is owed to the fund's donors and to the next claimant, not only to the man in front of you.
3. Set out your decision on all three requests, with the principle you applied to each.
Read the worked answer
(i) PKR 90,000 - medical need: approve, subject to the two-signature rule and payment against hospital bills. Principle: necessity plus verification. The need is documented and the amount is proportionate to the estimates; the family's declared income makes the case stronger.
(ii) PKR 60,000 - farewell dinner: reject. The fund was collected as sadaqat for cadets in need. A hotel dinner is consumption, not relief; spending trust money on it is israf (waste) and converts a charitable purpose into a social one. If the batch wants a dinner, it funds it from subscriptions, with a separate account and a transparent rate.
(iii) PKR 40,000 - theft claim: hold, do not refuse outright. The claimant is not dishonest merely because he is undocumented, but the trust requires proof. Ask for a police report or a written statement countersigned by his divisional officer, and issue nothing in cash until one exists. If it is later verified, pay against a receipt.
One sentence governs all three: the fund may be generous with its money, but never with its records. Any ruling on the religious eligibility of a specific payment should be confirmed with a qualified scholar rather than settled by a cadet committee.