S. SESHACHALAM & ORS. ETC. versus CHAIRMAN, BAR COUNCIL OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 12 S.C.R. 465 · Decided: 16-12-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.Y. EQBAL · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 12 S.C.R. 465 
S. SESHACHALAM & ORS. ETC. 
v. 
CHAIRMAN, BAR COUNCIL OF TAMIL. NADU & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 11454-11459 of 2014) 
DECEMBER 16, 2014 
[M.Y. EQBAL AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Tamil Nadu Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 1987 - s. 16 
Explanation II (5) Proviso - Payment of amount on cessation 
A 
B 
of practice - Advocates Welfare Fund - Classification of C 
advocates - Lawyers joining straight after their enrolment and 
lawyers who enroll themselves after their retirement from 
government services and continue to receive pension and 
other terminal benefits - Denial of payment of two lakh rupees 
to the kin of advocates receiving pension or gratuity or other D 
terminal benefits from any State or Central Gove_rnment 
organization - Challenge to - Held: Classification of lawyers 
into these two categories is a reasonable classification having 
a nexus with.the object of the Act- Retired officials who joined 
legal profession constitute a separate class and the 
E 
disentitlement of the benefit of lump sum welfare fund to this 
group of advocates cannot be said to be unreasonable - Bihar 
State Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 1983 -
s. 1 (3) -
Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 1987 - Kera/a Advocates 
Welfare Fund Act - s. 15 - Orissa Advocates Welfare Fund 
F 
Act - s. 15 - Rajasthan Advocates Welfare Fund Act - s. 16. 
Dismissing the. appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The lawyers, straight after their enrolment, 
who join the legal profession with high hopes and 
G 
expectations and dedicate their whole lives to the 
professions are the real deservers for lump sum welfare 
fund under the Act. Lawyers who· enrol themselves after 
their retirement from government services and continue 
465 
H 
466 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 12 S;C.R. 
A 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 
B 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 Act would actually 
amount to double benefits. Therefore, the classification 
of lawyers into these two categories is a reasonable 
c classification having a nexus with the object of the Act. 
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. [Para 28, 31] [484-G·H; 485-
D A-B; 486-D] 
1.2. 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 
E 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 
F excluded from the benefit of t.he lump sum amount of 
welfare fund. [Para 29] [485-C-E] 
' 
1.3. Section 28 of the Central legislation-Advocates' 
Welfare Fund Act 2001 provides that no senior advocate 
or a p.erson in receipt of pension from the Central 
G 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 advo'cates on the premise that 
a group of advocates receive certain financial assistance 
H from the State Government or the Central Government or 
S. SESHACHALAM v. CHAIRMAN, BAR COUNCIL 
467· 
OF TAMIL NADU 
some other employer in the form of terminal benefits and 
A 
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 A~t (Section 16), 
Bihar State Advocates' Welfare Fund Act (Section 1(3) 
B 
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. It cannot be said the distinction c 
amongst the two class of advocates is unreasonable or 
irrational
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.