Breaking; Retired Officials who joined Legal Profession constitute a separate class and the disentitlement of the benefit of Advocate Welfare Fund to this group of advocates cannot be said to be unreasonable : SC [Read the Judgment]

A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court today in Seshachalam and Others vs. Chairman Bar Council of TN [Civil Appeals 11454-11459/2014] upheld the Madras High Court Judgment which held 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 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.The Court was examining the question whether proviso to Section 16 Explanation II (5) of Tamil Nadu Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 1987 denying the 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. The Court also examined the vires of 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.A 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 and had 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 by the order 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. Hence the AppealCounsel for the appellants Mr. Haris 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 benefit, and that cannot form the basis for denial of lump sum benefits. It was also 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 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 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. Rejecting the arguments the Supreme Court held as follows;"in the light of the well-settled principles of interpretation of Article 14, it is to be seen whether there is intelligible differentiabetween 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.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...

Breaking; Retired Officials who joined Legal Profession constitute a separate class and the disentitlement of the benefit of Advocate Welfare Fund to this group of advocates cannot be said to be unreasonable : SC [Read the Judgment]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags