1. These two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are filed by the Advocates enrolled by the Bar Council of Bihar. The common issue raised in both these writ petitions is the validity of sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Bihar State Advocates Welfare Act, 1983 in so far as it debars a class of Advocates from being members of the Welfare Fund.

2. The petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 8713 of 2008 was one Kedar Nath Tiwari, an Advocate practising in the Patna High Court. Pending the petition the petitioner has passed away. He has been substituted by his heirs and legal representatives, the wife and the sons. The writ petitioner Shri Kedar Nath Tiwari claimed that he had joined the legal profession in the month of April 1991 after retirement from the Indian Air Force and that he was practising as an Advocate in the High Court of Patna.

3. We assume that as a retired officer of the Indian Air Force he had received the terminal benefits and was in receipt of pension from the Central Government.

4. The petitioner Basudeo Sharan is a retired Judicial Officer in receipt of pension from the State of Bihar. After taking voluntary retirement from the judicial service in the year 1997, he has enrolled himself as a member of the Bar Council of the State of Bihar and has started practice in the Civil Court at Chapra.

5. Both the petitioners are aggrieved because they are not allowed to enjoy the benefit of the Welfare Fund established under the Bihar State Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1983). Though the petitions are filed for the benefit of a class of Advocates who are debarred from joining the Fund, the petitions are filed by individual Advocates not in a representative capacity; nor the procedure envisaged for filing a petition in a representative capacity has been followed.

6. The Act of 1983 has been enacted to provide for the Constitution of a Welfare Fund for the benefit of Advocates in the State of Bihar and for connected or incidental matters,.

7. Sub-section 2 of Section 1 of the Act of 1983 makes it applicable over the whole of the State of Bihar. Sub-section (3) thereof specifically excludes the persons who have retired from service and are in receipt of retirement benefits from their employers. Sub-section (3) reads as under:

"It shall not apply to persons who have retired from service and have been paid or are entitled to payment of retirement benefits from his employer."

8. It is the aforesaid sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act of 1983 which is subject matter of challenge before us as being discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that once a person is enrolled as an Advocate he joins a class of persons namely Advocates. There cannot be further distinction between an Advocate and an Advocate. The above referred subsection (3) makes out an artificial distinction amongst the Advocates who joined the profession right after completing the education and those who joined the profession after rendering certain service under some employer. Amongst the second category of Advocates it makes a further distinction between those who are in receipt of retiral benefits from their erstwhile employer and those who are not in receipt of retirement benefits. The learned Advocates have submitted that the artificial classification made amongst one homogenous group of Advocates, that too without reference to their financial position, is discriminatory and unconstitutional and requires to be struck off as ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. In support of their submissions learned Advocates have relied upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in the matter of R. Veeraragavan V/s. State of Tamil Nadu (A.I.R. 2007 Madras 205) and the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the matter of L.I.C. of India and Another V/s. Consumer Education and Research Centre and Others (A.I.R. 1995 SC 1811).

9. In the case before the Madras High Court, a