Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. JYOTHIMANI & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN
The Chairman Bar Council of Tamil Nadu High Court Campus Chennai & Another
Versus
S. Seshachalam & Others
W.A.Nos.823, 824, 826 and 829 to 832 of 2007
Decided on: 17-07-2009
The impugned amendment to the Tamil Nadu Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987, which excludes members of the fund who were in receipt of pension, gratuity, or other terminal benefits from any State Government or Central Government or other authority or employer from receiving a lumpsum payment upon their death, is a reasonable classification and does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The classification is based on the intelligible differentia that members who have devoted their entire lives to the profession of law and have not received any terminal benefits are more deserving of the lumpsum payment than members who have received such benefits upon retirement from other employment.
Fact of the Case:
The Tamil Nadu Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987 (the Welfare Fund Act) was enacted to provide for the constitution of a welfare fund for the benefit of advocates on cessation of practice. The fund is maintained by a Trustee Committee established under the Act. Section 16 of the Welfare Fund Act provides for the payment of an amount to a member of the fund on cessation of practice. In 2000, the Welfare Fund Act was amended to provide that members of the fund who had completed 25 years of practice as an advocate would be paid a lumpsum amount of Rs. 1 lakh on cessation of practice. However, a proviso was added to the amendment that excluded members who were in receipt of pension, gratuity, or other terminal benefits from any State Government or Central Government or other authority or employer from receiving the lumpsum payment.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the impugned amendment was a reasonable classification and did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court noted that the classification was based on the intelligible differentia that members who have devoted their entire lives to the profession of law and have not received any terminal benefits are more deserving of the lumpsum payment than members who have received such benefits upon retirement from other employment. The court also noted that the amendment was intended to ensure that the limited resources of the fund were used to benefit those members who were most in need.
Issues: Whether the impugned amendment to the Tamil Nadu Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987, which excludes members of the fund who were in receipt of pension, gratuity, or other terminal benefits from any State Government or Central Government or other authority or employer from receiving a lumpsum payment upon their death, is a reasonable classification and does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The classification made under the impugned amendment is based on an intelligible differentia and has a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the amendment. The object of the amendment is to ensure that the limited resources of the fund are used to benefit those members who are most in need. The classification is based on the assumption that members who have devoted their entire lives to the profession of law and have not received any terminal benefits are more deserving of the lumpsum payment than members who have received such benefits upon retirement from other employment. This assumption is reasonable and is supported by the evidence on record.
Final Decision: The impugned amendment to the Tamil Nadu Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987, which excludes members of the fund who were in receipt of pension, gratuity, or other terminal benefits from any State Government or Central Government or other authority or employer from receiving a lumpsum payment upon their death, is a reasonable classification and does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
P. JYOTHIMANI, J.
These appeals are filed by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and the Government of Tamil Nadu against the common order of the learned Judge dated 3. 2007 made in W.P.Nos.1991 of 1996, 11133 of 1998, 1932 of 2003 and 4533 of 2004, by which the learned Judge has struck down a proviso to Explanation II(5) to Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987 (for brevity, "the Welfare Fund Act").
.2. The first respondent in W.A.No.823/2007, respondents 1 to 6 in W.A.No.824/2007, respondents 1 to 5 in W.A.No.826/2007, respondent in W.A.No.829/2007, respondents 1 to 5 in W.A.No.830/2007, first respondent in W.A.No.831/2007 and respondents 1 to 6 in W.A.No.832/2007 (for brevity, "the contesting respondents"), who are the advocates enrolled with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu after having retired from Government and other services, have challenged the above said proviso by which the benefit of payment of Rs.2 Lakhs to a member of the Advocates Welfare Fund is denied to the legal heirs or nominees on the death of such advocates who were on receipt of pension, gratuity or other terminal benefits from any State Government or Central Government or other authority or employer. The contesting respondents, who are retired officials from various departments and are qualified with Law Degree, have enrolled as advocates after their retirement in various services and are practicing in various courts.
3. The Government of Tamil Nadu has passed the Welfare Fund Act in order to constitute a welfare fund for the benefit of advocates on cessation of their practice. Under Section 3(1) of the Welfare Fund Act, the Government has constituted "Tamil Nadu Advocates Welfare Fund", which consists of various amounts as contemplated under Section 3(2) of the Welfare Fund Act and the said fund is maintained by a "Trustee Committee" constituted under Section 4 of the Welfare Fund Act. Section 15 of the Welfare Fund Act enables an Advocate practicing in any court in the State and being a member of a Bar Association or an Advocates Association to become a member of the Advocates Welfare Fund on payment of subscriptions mentioned therein. Under Section 16 of the Welfare Fund Act, every advocate who has been a member of the fund for a period of not less than five years, on cessation of practice was eligible for payment of various amounts specified in the schedule to the Welfare Fund Act, which depends upon the number of years of practice. However, the Trustee Committee is empowered to make such schedule payment even to an advocate having less than five years experience, who ceases to practice, on being satisfied that there has been any permanent physical or mental disability of such advocate. It is also made clear that in cases where a member of the fund dies before receiving the amount as per the schedule, his nominees or legal heirs would be entitled for such payment.
4. While so, the Government of Tamil Nadu has brought an amendment to the Welfare Fund Act, by way of an Amendment Act 43 of 1995, by which a new scheme was introduced that on the death of a member, his nominee or legal heir were to be paid an amount of Rs.1 Lakh and that was incorporated in Explanation II (5) to Section 16 of the Welfare Fund Act. In the proviso to the said provision, the said benefit of Rs.1 Lakh was denied to a member who was in receipt of a pension or gratuity or other terminal benefits from any State or Central Government, etc. However, the said amount has been increased with effect from 2. 2001 to Rs.2 Lakhs.
.5. The above said proviso was challenged by the contesting respondents on the grounds that the proviso is contrary to the very purpose of the Welfare Fund Act; that the classification among the advocates, who are the members of the Welfare Fund, and denial of benefits to the contesting respondents on the basis that they are in receipt of pension and other benefits, having served in the State or Central Government, etc., is arbitra
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
