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