Page 1 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLALTE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 11454-11459 OF 2014

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.9068-73/2010)

S.SESHACHALAM & ORS. ETC. ..Appellants

Versus

CHAIRMAN, BAR COUNCIL OF

TAMIL NADU & ORS.

..Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.11460 OF 2014

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.34326/2012)

THE ELDER LAWYERS’ ASSOCIATION & ORS. ..Appellants

Versus

STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. ..Respondents

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Leave granted.

2. Whether proviso to Section 16 Explanation II (5) of

Tamil Nadu Advocates’ Welfare Fund Act, 1987 denying the

Page 2 payment of two lakh rupees to the kin of advocates receiving

pension or gratuity or other terminal benefits would be

violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and

whether distinguishing this class of advocates from other law

graduates enrolling in the Bar straight after their law degree

did not have any rational basis are the points falling for

consideration in these appeals.

3. Similar challenge is made to Section 1(3) of the

Bihar State Advocates’ Welfare Fund Act 1983 which

excludes the persons who have retired from service and are

in receipt of retiral benefits from their employers from the

purview of the Bihar State Advocates’ Welfare Fund Act. For

convenience, appeals challenging the provisions of Tamil

Nadu Advocates’ Welfare Fund Act are taken as lead case.

4. The appellants are retired employees either from

government service or other organisations qualified with law

degree who have enrolled themselves as advocates after

retiring from their respective services and now are said to be

practising in courts. Challenging the impugned provision

and Explanation II (5) of Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu

2

Page 3 Advocates’ Welfare Fund Act, the appellants filed writ

petitions contending that the benefit of Welfare Fund Act is

denied to the kin of advocates who are in receipt of pension

or gratuity or other terminal benefits from any State or

Central Government or organization is arbitrary,

unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution

of India.

5. Learned single Judge of the Madras High Court

allowed the batch of writ petitions filed by the retired

officials who had enrolled themselves as advocates after

their retirement. Learned single Judge struck down

impugned proviso to Explanation II (5) of Section 16 holding

that the same is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of

India. Aggrieved, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and the

Government preferred appeals before the Division Bench

which allowed the appeals and set aside the order of the

learned single Judge. The Division Bench held “…..that the

distinction made between the member advocates who

enrolled and professed law profession from the beginning,

and the advocates who joined law profession after

3

Page 4 retirement, viz., after completion of nearly 58 years of their

life, for the purpose of conferring lump sum benefit….” is a

reasonable classification and the said classification has a

nexus to the objects sought to be achieved and it cannot be

held to be arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the

Constitution of India. Challenging the same, the appellants

have preferred these appeals by way of special leave.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Harish

Beeran contended that the denial of lump sum benefit based

on a classification of advocates is violative of Article 14 of

the Constitution of India. It was submitted that the

differentiation between persons who enrolled as advocates

after demitting office from the govt. service/organization and

who enrolled as advocates and set up practice straight from

the law college, is discriminatory as there is no such

distinction made in the Act while defining the term

‘advocate’ under Section 2(a) of the Act. It was further

submitted that the pension and other benefits received are

the statutory amounts paid to them for the services

rendered to the previous employer and it is an earned

4

Page 5 benefit, and that cannot form the basis for denial of lump

sum benefits. The appellants argued that the impugned

proviso is repugnant and contradictory to Section 2(i) of the

Act, which defines the term ‘member of Fund’ and is liable to

be struck down as ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of

India.

7. Mr. Pramod Swarup learned Senior Counsel for the

appellants (Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C)

No.34326/2012) submitted that as per Section 1(3) of the

Bihar State Advocates’ Welfare Fund Act, the persons who

enrol themselves as advocates after retirement and are in

receipt of retiral benefits are not permitted to take

membership under the Act. It was contended that the

artificial classification made amongst homogeneous group of

advocates and disentitling retired employees - advocates

from becoming member of the welfare fund is discriminatory

and unconstitutional.

8. Mr. L. Nageshwara Rao, learned ASG appearing for

the State of Tamil Nadu contended that the object of Welfare

Fund Act is to provide welfare or social security benefits to

5

Page 6 the advocates who are fully committed to the profession of

law and in the event of their death, their legal heirs will be

entitled to receive the lump sum welfare amount. The

learned senior counsel contended that the distinction made

between the advocates amounts to a reasonable

classification and is founded on an intelligible differentia

which is having a rational nexus with the objects sought to

be achieved by the Act in question.

9. Mr. Rudreshwar Singh, learned counsel appearing

for the State of Bihar submitted that the Welfare Fund

Scheme is intended only for those young advocates who

struggle from inception of their profession and not intended

for the retired employees enrolled as advocates who receive

pension and other terminal benefits from their previous

employers. Taking us through the Central legislation–

Advocates’ Welfare Fund Act 2001 and the provisions of the

Welfare Fund Act of other States, learned counsel submitted

that those legislations do make a distinction amongst the

advocates receiving pensionary benefits from their

6

Page 7 employers and those who set up the practice straight after

completing the law degree.

10. We have carefully considered the submissions and

gone through the impugned judgments and perused the

materials on record.

11.STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS - THE

ADVOCATES’ WELFARE FUND ACT, 2001: The

Advocates’ Welfare Fund Act, 2001 enacted by the

Parliament enjoins the appropriate Government to constitute

a fund to be called the “Advocates’ Welfare Fund” with the

object of providing social security in the form of financial

assistance to junior lawyers and welfare scheme for indigent

or disabled advocates. The statement and objects read as

under:-

“Social security in the form of financial assistance to

junior lawyers and welfare schemes for indigent or

disabled advocates, has long been a matter of

concern for the legal fraternity. Clause (a) of sub-

section (2) of section 6 and clause (a) of sub-section

(2) of section 7 of the Advocates Act, 1961, confer

powers on State Bar Councils as well as the Bar

Council of India, inter alia, to constitute through

their rules one or more funds for the purpose of

“giving financial assistance to organise welfare

schemes for the indigent, disabled or other

advocates”. Sub-section (3) of Section 6 and sub-

section (3) of section 7 of the Advocates Act further

7

Page 8 provide that a State Bar Council may receive grants,

donations, gifts or benefactions for the said purpose

which shall be credited to the appropriate fund or

funds constituted under sub-section (2). Welfare

schemes have accordingly been introduced in some

States. Most of the States have enacted legislations

on the subject. However, there is neither any

uniformity nor the said provisions are considered

adequate. Moreover, the Advocates Act does not

authorise levy of any welfare fund stamp on

vakalatnama. There has, therefore, been felt a need

for a Central legislation applicable to the Union

territories and the States which do not have their

own enactments on the subject, for constitution of

“Advocates’ Welfare Fund” by the appropriate

Government. The Fund will, inter alia, be composed

of contributions made by a State Bar Council, any

voluntary donation or contribution by the Bar Council

of India, advocates’ associations, other associations

or institutions or persons, any grant made by the

appropriate Government, sums collected by way of

sale of “Advocates’ Welfare Fund Stamps”.

2. All practicing advocates shall become

members of the Fund on payment of an application

fee and annual subscription. The Fund shall vest in

and be held and applied by the Trustee Committee

established by the appropriate Government. The

Fund will, inter alia, be used for making ex gratia

grant to a member of the Fund in case of a serious

health problem, payment to a fixed amount on

cessation of practice and in case of death of a

member, to his nominee or legal heir, medical and

educational facilities for the members and their

dependents, purchase of books and for common

facilities for advocates. The income accrued to the

Fund, profits and gains shall be exempted from

income tax.

3. The Bill seeks to achieve the above object.”

12. It is with the same objects and purpose Tamil

Nadu Advocates’ Welfare Fund Act 1987 (for short ‘Welfare

8

Page 9 Fund Act’) was also enacted. Some of the provisions of the

Welfare Fund Act are relevant to be noted. Section 2(a)

defines “Advocate” as under:-

“2(a) “Advocate” means a person whose name has

been entered in the roll of advocates prepared and

maintained by the Bar Council under section 17 of

the Advocates Act, 1961 (Central Act 25 of 1961) and

who is a member of a Bar Association or an

Advocates Association.”

Section 2(i) defines member of the Fund as under:-

“2(i) “member of the Fund” means an advocate

admitted to the benefits of the Fund and continuing

to be a member thereof under the provisions of this

Act.”

Cessation of practice is defined in Section 2(e) which reads

as under:-

“2(e) “cessation of practice” means removal of the

name of an advocate from the State roll under

section 26-A of the Advocates Act, 1961 (Central Act

25 of 1961).”

13. Section 3 of the Welfare Fund Act states that the

Government shall constitute a fund called the Tamil Nadu

Advocates’ Welfare Fund. Section 3 reads as under:-

“3. Advocates Welfare Fund

9

Page 10 (1)The Government shall constitute a fund called

the Tamil Nadu Advocates Welfare Fund.

(2)There shall be credited to the Fund-

(a) all amounts paid by the Bar Council

under section 12;

(b) any other contribution made by the Bar

Council;

(c) any voluntary donation or contribution

made to the Fund by the Bar Council of

India, any Bar Association, any Advocates

Association; or other association or

institution, or any advocate or other

person;

(d)any grant made by the Government to

the Fund;

(e)any sum borrowed under Section 10;

(f)all sums collected under Section 15;

(g)all sums received from the Life Insurance

Corporation of India on the death of an

advocate under a Group Insurance Policy;

(h)any profit or dividend or refund received

from the Life Insurance Corporation of

India in respect of policies of Group

Insurance of the members of the Fund;

(i)any interest or dividend or other return

on any investment made of any part of

the Fund; and

(j)all sums collected by way of sale of

stamps under Section 22.

(3)The sums specified in sub-section (2) shall be

paid to, or collected by, such agencies, at such

intervals and in such manner, and the accounts

of the Fund shall be maintained in such

manner, as may be prescribed.”

Advocates’ Welfare Fund is administered by a Trustee

Committee. As per the provisions of the Welfare Fund Act,

the fund shall vest in and be held and administered by the

Trustee Committee established under Section 4 of the Act.

1

Page 11 The functions of the Trustee Committee is enumerated in

Section 9 of the Welfare Fund Act.

14. Section 16 of the Welfare Fund Act which is

relevant for these appeals deals with the payment of amount

on cessation of practice. After 2001 amendment, Section 16

reads as under:-

“16.Payment of amount on cessation of

practice

(1) Every advocate who has been a member of the

Fund for a period of not less than five years

shall, on his cessation of practice, be paid an

amount at the rate specified in the Schedule:

(IA) “Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-

section (1), every member of the Fund who has

completed or completes twenty five years of practice

as an advocate on the date coming into force of the

Tamil Nadu Advocates Welfare Fund (Amendment)

Act, 2000 shall, on completion of five years as a

member of the Fund and on his cessation of practice,

be paid a lump sum amount of one lakh rupees.

(w.e.f. 1.2.2001)

Provided that where the Trustee Committee is

satisfied that a member of the Fund ceases to

practice within a period of five years from the date of

his admission as a member of Fund as a result of

“any permanent physical or mental disability”, the

Trustee Committee may pay the member of the Fund

an amount at the rate specified in the Schedule:

Explanation I: For the purposes of calculating the

number of years standing of a member of the Fund

for the purpose of this sub-section, every four years

of practice as an advocate before the admission of a

member to the Fund shall be counted as one year’s

standing and every year of practice over and above

four years before such admission shall be counted

1

Page 12 equivalent to three months’ standing and the total

number of years of standing so counted shall be

added to the number of years of practice.

Explanation II- (1) The period during which a member

of the Fund remained under suspension shall not be

considered for the purpose of counting the years of

standing.

(2)Where a member of the Fund dies before

receiving the amount payable under sub-

section (1), his nominees or legal heir, as the

case may be, shall be paid the amount payable

to the deceased member of the Fund.

(3)Any person removed from the membership in

the Fund under sub-section (5) of Section 15

and re-admitted to the Fund under sub-section

(6) of that section shall not be entitled to

payment of any amount from the Fund under

this Act during the period between the date of

his removal from the membership in the Fund

and the date of re-admission.

(4)Any member who is suspended by the Bar

Council for misconduct under the Advocates

Act 1961 (Central Act 25 of 1961) shall not be

entitled to payment of any amount from the

Fund under this Act, for the period of such

suspension.

(5)Where a member of the Fund dies, his

nominee or legal heir, as the case may

be, shall be paid an amount of two lakh

rupees;

Provided that if such member who, before

his death, was in receipt of pension,

gratuity or other terminal benefits from

any State Government or Central

Government or other authority or

employer, his nominee or legal heir, as

the case may be, shall not be entitled for

the payment of the amount of two lakh

rupees under this sub-section. (w.e.f.

1.2.2001)

(6)Every member or his nominee or legal heir, as

the case may be, shall apply, for payment out

of the Fund, to the Trustee Committee, in such

form, as may be prescribed.

1

Page 13 (7)Where a person, who has been paid an amount

under sub-section (1) or (1-A) has been

admitted as an advocate again under section

24 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (Central Act 25

of 1961), desires to be re-admitted to the Fund

shall, on an application made in the same

manner as specified in sections (1) or (1-A) as

the case may be with interest calculated at the

rate of twelve per cent per annum, be re-

admitted to the Fund. He shall not be entitled

to payment of any amount from the Fund

under this Act, during the period between the

date of his cessation of practice and the date of

re-admission w.e.f. 15.1.1996.”

15. Explanation II (5) of Section 16 prior to

Amendment 2001 stood as under:-

Explanation II (5) “Where a member of the Fund

dies within five years of his admission to the Fund,

his nominee or legal heir, as the case may be, shall

be paid an amount at the rate of one thousand

rupees for each year of practice by the member of

the Fund.”

16. By a careful reading of Section 16, it is evident

that prior to 2001 amendment, Explanation II (5) of Section

16 of the Welfare Fund Act contemplated that on the death

of a member of the Fund within five years from the date of

his admission to the Fund, his nominee or legal heirs

was/were eligible for payment at the rate of one thousand

rupees for each year of his practice. That was because

under Section 16(1) of the Welfare Fund Act, the schedule

payment is possible only if as an advocate he has completed

1

Page 14 five years as a member of the Fund. Explanation II (5) to

Section 16 of the Welfare Fund Act stood amended with

effect from 1.2.2001 as extracted above, as per which lump

sum amount of two lakh rupees is payable on the death of

a member of the Fund irrespective of the years of

membership of the Fund. After GO. Ms. 688 dated

19.9.2012, the above financial assistance of two lakh rupees

payable to the nominee/legal heirs of the deceased

advocates in terms of Section 16 Explanation II (5) has been

enhanced to five lakh and twenty five thousand rupees. This

lump sum of two lakh rupees (as per Amendment 2001) is

denied to a member of a Fund who has enrolled himself

after retirement from government service or any other

organization who was in receipt of pension or other terminal

benefits.

17. Contention of the appellants is that as per

definition of “advocate” in Section 2 (a) of the Welfare Fund

Act, there cannot be a differentiation between the

advocates. Reliance was placed upon Section 2(i) of the

Welfare Fund Act which defines the term “member of the

1

Page 15 Fund” and it was submitted that when once the retired

employees like the appellants have been admitted as

members of the Fund, they should be treated equally with

others and there cannot be an artificial classification made

amongst one homogeneous group of advocates and such

classification is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of

India.

18. As per the scheme of the Welfare Fund Act, every

advocate who has enrolled with the State Bar Council as

per the Advocates Act 1961 would not automatically become

a member of the Advocates’ Welfare Fund and it is only

those advocates who applied to the Trustee Committee, can

become member of the Advocates’ Welfare Fund. As per

Section 15 of the Welfare Fund Act, only those who applied

on payment of membership of Rs.200/- towards application

shall be admitted as a member of the Fund. It is thus not in

dispute, not only the advocates who have enrolled with the

Bar Council immediately after completion of their law

degree, but also those who enrolled as advocates after their

retirement from other employment may become the

1

Page 16 members of the Advocates’ Welfare Fund. It is only those

advocates who have become the members of the Advocates’

Welfare Fund, are eligible for the benefits under the Welfare

Fund Act which may be the payment of schedule amount on

cessation of practice in terms of Section 16 (1) and payment

of lump sum amount as per the impugned proviso. As per

Section 16 (1) of the Act, every advocate who has been a

member of the Fund for a period of not less than five years,

on his cessation of practice, be paid an amount at the rate

specified in the schedule. The proviso to sub-section (1) of

Section 16 enables the Trustee Committee to pay an

amount to a member of the Fund who ceases to practice

within a period of five years from the date of his admission

as a member. Thus, the persons who enrolled as advocates

after their retirement even though they are denied the

benefit of lump sum payment under the impugned proviso,

on cessation of their practice, they shall be entitled to the

Welfare Fund at the rate specified in the schedule. The

differentiation of the retired employee-advocates who have

set up practice as advocates after demitting their office, who

1

Page 17 are in receipt of pension or other terminal benefits and the

advocates who set up practice straight from the law college,

in our considered view, appears to be rational and

reasonable. The said classification, in our view, has a nexus

with the object sought to be achieved.

19. Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Tamil

Nadu Welfare Fund Act clearly states that the Welfare Fund

is intended to provide welfare to the advocates and to

provide them retirement benefits. The Objects and Reasons

of Tamil Nadu Advocates’ Welfare fund Act reads as under:-

STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS

Tamil Nadu Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987 (Tamil

Nadu Act 49 of 1987)

“The constitution of a Welfare Fund for the payment

of retirement benefits to the advocates in the State

of Tamil Nadu and for conferring on them the

benefits connected therewith or incidental thereto

has been engaging the attention of this Government

for quite some time. The Government have decided

to constitute a Fund called the Tamil Nadu

Advocates Welfare Fund in the State to provide for

payment of retirement benefits to the advocates in

the State and for conferring on them the benefits

connected therewith or incidental thereto.”

(Underlining added)

20. The main point falling for consideration is whether

there is nexus between the object of the Act and denial of

benefits of lump sum welfare fund to retired employees

1

Page 18 enrolled as advocates after their retirement under

explanation II (5) of Section 16 of the Act. As noticed earlier,

on cessation of practice, the members of the Welfare Fund

are entitled to the benefits as available in the schedule to

the Welfare Fund Act based on the years of service and what

is denied is just a lump sum amount. It is an established

principle that mere hardship caused to a group should not be

a ground to strike down a law.

21. Article 14 of the Constitution of India states that

“The State shall not deny to any person equality before the

law of the equal protection of the laws within the territory of

India”. Article 14 forbids class-legislation but it does not

forbid reasonable classification. The classification however

must not be “arbitrary, artificial or evasive” but must be

based on some real and substantial bearing, a just and

reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by

the legislation. Article 14 applies where equals are treated

differently without any reasonable basis. But where equals

and unequals are treated differently, Article 14 does not

apply. Class legislation is that which makes an improper

1

Page 19 discrimination by conferring particular privileges upon a

class of persons arbitrarily selected from a large number of

persons all of whom stand in the same relation to the

privilege granted and between those on whom the privilege

is conferred whom and the persons not so favoured, no

reasonable distinction or substantial difference can be found

justifying the inclusion of one and the exclusion of the other

from such privilege.

22. While Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does

not forbid reasonable classification of persons, objects, and

transactions by the legislature for the purpose of achieving

specific ends. But classification must not be “arbitrary,

artificial or evasive”. It must always rest upon some real and

substantial distinction bearing a just and reasonable relation

to the object sought to be achieved by the legislation.

Classification to be reasonable must fulfil the following two

conditions:- Firstly, the classification must be founded on

the intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or

things that are grouped together from others left out of the

group. Secondly, the differentia must have a rational

1

Page 20 relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act. The

differentia which is the basis of the classification and the

object of the Act are two distinct things. What is necessary

is that there must be nexus between the basis of

classification and the object of the Act. It is only when there

is no reasonable basis for a classification that legislation

making such classification may be declared discriminatory.

23. In Special Courts Bill, 1978 (1979) 1 SCC 380, this

Court referred to large number of decisions involving

interpretation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and

summarized the principles. In the case of National Council

for Teacher Education vs. Shri Shyam Shiksha Prashikshan

Sansthan, (2011) 3 SCC 238, Justice Singhvi has elaborated

the concept of ‘ Right to Equality’ by referring to chain of

judgments delivered by this Court and established principles

viz. Union of India & Anr. vs. Parameswaran Match Works &

Ors., (1975) 1 SCC 305, Dr. Sushma Sharma & Ors. vs. State

of Rajasthan & Ors., (1985) Supp. SCC 45, University Grants

Commission vs. Sadhana Chaudhary & Ors., (1996) 10 SCC

536, Ramrao & Ors. vs. All India Backward Class Bank

2

Page 21 Employees Welfare Association & Ors., (2004) 2 SCC 76 and

State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Amar Nath Goyal & Ors., (2005) 6

SCC 754 etc.

24. Recently, in the case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy

vs. Director, CBI & Anr., (2014) 8 SCC 682, this Court

considered the process of classification and what should be

regarded as a class for purposes of legislation held in paras

(58) and (70) as under:-

“58. The Constitution permits the State to determine, by

the process of classification, what should be regarded as a

class for purposes of legislation and in relation to law

enacted on a particular subject. There is bound to be some

degree of inequality when there is segregation of one class

from the other. However, such segregation must be

rational and not artificial or evasive. In other words, the

classification must not only be based on some qualities or

characteristics, which are to be found in all persons

grouped together and not in others who are left out but

those qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable

relation to the object of the legislation. Differentia which is

the basis of classification must be sound and must have

reasonable relation to the object of the legislation. If the

object itself is discriminatory, then explanation that

classification is reasonable having rational relation to the

object sought to be achieved is immaterial.

70.Undoubtedly, every differentiation is not a

discrimination but at the same time, differentiation must

be founded on pertinent and real differences as

distinguished from irrelevant and artificial ones. A simple

physical grouping which separates one category from the

other without any rational basis is not a sound or

intelligible differentia. The separation or segregation must

have a systematic relation and rational basis and the

object of such segregation must not be discriminatory.

Every public servant against whom there is reasonable

suspicion of commission of crime or there are allegations of

2

Page 22 an offence under the PC Act, 1988 has to be treated

equally and similarly under the law. Any distinction made

between them on the basis of their status or position in

service for the purposes of inquiry/investigation is nothing

but an artificial one and offends Article 14.”

25. In the light of the well-settled principles of

interpretation of Article 14, it is to be seen whether there is

intelligible differentia between the classification of advocates who

had set up practice straight after enrolment and other advocates

who start their practice after demitting the office and are in

receipt of pension and other benefits and whether the differentia

has a nexus with the object of the Act.

26. The profession of law is a noble calling. The legal

fraternity toils day and night to be successful in the profession.

Although it is true that slowly working one’s way up is the norm in

any profession, including law, but initially young advocates have

to remain in the queue for a prolonged period of time and

struggle through greater hardships. Despite being extremely

talented, a number of young lawyers hardly get proper

opportunity or exposure in their profession. New entrants to the

profession in the initial stages of the profession suffer with the

meagre stipend which young lawyers may receive during their

2

Page 23 initial years, coupled with the absence of a legislation concerning

this, they struggle to manage their food, lodging, transportation

and other needs. Despite their valiant efforts, they are unable to

march ahead in their profession. It is only after years of hard

work and slogging that some of the fortunate lawyers are able

to make a name for themselves and achieve success in the

profession. For the majority of the legal fraternity, everyday is a

challenge. Despite the difficult times, the lawyer who sets up

practice straight after enrolment, struggles to settle down

himself in the profession. Some of the lawyers remain struggling

throughout their lives yet choose to remain in the profession. It

is something like “riding a bicycle uphill with the wind against

one”.

27. Contrariwise, the retired employees like the appellants

who are law graduates did not withstand the difficult times in the

profession. They opted for some other lucrative job during their

prime time of their life and lived a secured life. Others found

some job and positioned themselves in a comfortable place of

employment, chose to join evening college or attended part time

classes and obtained law degree and having retired with

2

Page 24 comfortable retiral benefits, further securing their future, they

enrol themselves as an advocate to practice. The retired

employees have the substantial retiral benefits, gratuity apart

from receiving pension. The availability of lump sum retiral

benefits with pension makes a retired employee better placed

than their counter part lawyers who struggle through difficult

times.

28. The various welfare fund schemes are in actuality

intended for the benefit of those who are in the greatest need of

them. The lawyers, straight after their enrolment, who join the

legal profession with high hopes and expectations and dedicate

their whole lives to the professions are the real deservers.

Lawyers who enrol themselves after their retirement from

government services and continue to receive pension and other

terminal benefits, who basically join this field in search of greener

pastures in the evening of their lives cannot and should not be

equated with those who have devoted their whole lives to the

profession. For these retired persons, some amount of financial

stability is ensured in view of the pension and terminal benefits

and making them eligible for lump sum welfare fund under the

2

Page 25 Act would actually amount to double benefits. Therefore, in our

considered view, the classification of lawyers into these two

categories is a reasonable classification having a nexus with the

object of the Act.

29. Furthermore, it is also to be noted that in view of their

being placed differently than the class of lawyers who chose this

profession as the sole means of their livelihood, it can reasonably

be discerned that the retired persons form a separate class. As

noticed earlier, the object of the Act is to provide for the

constitution of a Welfare Fund for the benefit of advocates on

cessation of practice. As per Section 3 (2) (d) any grant made by

the Government to the welfare fund is one of the source of the

Advocates' Welfare Fund. The retired employees are already in

receipt of pension from the Government or other employer and to

make them get another retiral benefit from the Advocates’

Welfare Fund would amount to double benefit and they are

rightly excluded from the benefit of the lump sum amount of

welfare fund.

30. Section 28 of the Central legislation-Advocates’ Welfare

Fund Act 2001 provides that no senior advocate or a person in

2

Page 26 receipt of pension from the Central Government or State

Government shall be entitled to ex-gratia grant under Sections

19, 21 and 24 of the said Act. Thus, the Central Act as well as the

State Act does make a distinction amongst the advocates on the

premise that a group of advocates receive certain financial

assistance from the State Government or the Central Government

or some other employer in the form of terminal benefits and

pension etc. Corresponding Acts of various States namely Kerala

Advocates Welfare Fund Act (Section 15), Orissa Advocates

Welfare Fund Act (Section 15) and Rajasthan Advocates Welfare

Fund Act (Section 16) contain similar provisions making

differentiation between advocates who enrolled themselves as

advocates after demitting their office and the other class of

advocates who enrolled as advocates straight from the law

college and set up the practice. We are unable to agree with the

learned counsel that the distinction amongst the two class of

advocates is unreasonable or irrational.

31. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court made

meticulous analysis of various provisions of the Welfare Fund Act

and referred to various decisions of this Court dealing with

2

Page 27 interpretation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and rightly

concluded that there is reasonable classification between the

advocates who had set up practice after demitting their office

from the Central/State government/Organization and advocates

who have set up practice straight from the law college. It would

be right to say that the retired officials who joined legal profession

constitute a separate class and the disentitlement of the benefit

of lump sum welfare fund to this group of advocates cannot be

said to be unreasonable. We do not find any infirmity in the

impugned judgment of the Madras High Court and the appeals are

liable to be dismissed accordingly.

32.Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition No.

34326/2012: Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Bihar State

Advocates’ Welfare Fund Act makes it applicable over the whole

of the State of Bihar. Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Bihar

State Advocates’ Welfare Fund Act excludes the persons who

have enrolled themselves as advocates after their retirement and

are in receipt of retiral benefits from the government or their

employers from the purview of the Welfare Fund Act. Advocates

Welfare Fund is enacted with the object of providing social

2

Page 28 security in the form of financial assistance to juniors and the

welfare scheme for indigent or disabled advocates. As the

appellants are already in receipt of pension from their employers,

in our view, there is no arbitrariness in excluding them from the

applicability of Bihar State Advocates’ Welfare Fund Act 1983.

The Division Bench of the Patna High Court applying its own

decision in Kedar Nath Tiwari v. State of Bihar, 2011 (2) PLJR 401,

rightly dismissed the writ petition and we do not find any

infirmity in the impugned order and the appeal is liable to be

dismissed.

33. In the result, all the appeals are dismissed.

……………………… ..J.

(M.Y. Eqbal)

……………………… ..J.

(R. Banumathi)

New Delhi;

December 16, 2014

2