The court affirmed that the right to receive Dearness Allowance is legally enforceable under Article 21, linking it to human dignity, and rejected the State's financial incapacity as a valid defense against payment.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL J.

This judgment is divided into the following parts:

INDEX

Leave Granted in SLP(C)Nos.22628-22630 of 2022.

This appeal is at the instance of the State of West Bengal and arise out of two prior rounds of litigation wherein the State suffered judgments against itself.

EXORDIUM

1. The idea of a welfare state casts a positive duty upon the State to ensure the social and economic well-being of its citizens. The role of the State is as such not limited to maintaining law and order or facilitating markets, but extends to creating or easing the way for conditions in which individuals can live with security, dignity, and a reasonable standard of living. One of the most persistent threats to this objective that has become a permanent ‘bad penny’, is inflation, which steadily erodes purchasing power, thereby placing a disproportionate burden on salaried and lower-income groups. In this context, Dearness Allowance emerges as a practical instrument of protection in the hands of the welfare state, which protects its employees from the adverse effects of rising prices.

2. Dearness Allowance is designed to neutralise the impact of inflation. When the cost of essential goods increases, salaries that do not account for the same and remain in a bygone era, often fail to meet the basic needs, leading to a decline in living standards. By way of periodic adjustment to salaries in response to changes in the cost of living, the State attempts to ensure that employment continues to provide economic security. This reflects a core concern of the welfare state that its employees should not be pushed into hardship due to economic forces beyond their control. Put differently, Dearness Allowance is not an additional benefit but a means to maintain a minimum standard of living.

3. The importance of preserving a reasonable standard of living is closely tied to the constitutional idea of dignity. Human dignity does not mean mere physical survival. Access to food, clothing, healthcare, shelter and the ability to participate meaningfully in social life are crucial aspects. Dignity is compromised when individuals are unable to meet these basic needs. This link is recognized in our Constitution under Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Judicial interpretation has consistently held that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity, encompassing livelihood, adequate nutrition, shelter, and basic amenities. This right, under Article 21, would lose its substantive meaning without a minimum standard of living.

4. PN Bhagwati J. (as his Lordship then was) felicitously captured this constitutional diktat in the following words in Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608:

“8. But the question which arises is whether the right to life is limi