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

                   [2014] 12 S.C.R. 465


            S. SESHACHALAM & ORS. ETC.                        A
                             v.
  CHAIRMAN, BAR COUNCIL OF TAMIL. NADU & ORS.
       (Civil Appeal Nos. 11454-11459 of 2014)
                  DECEMBER 16, 2014
                                                              B
        [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
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. [Para 30] [485-F-H; 486-A-B]

     Special Courts Bill, 1979 (2) SCR 476: (1979) 1 SCC
380; National Council for Teacher Education vs. Shri Shyam
Shiksha Prashikshan Sansthan 2011 (2) SCR 291 : (2011) D
3 SCC 238; Union of India & Anr. vs. Parameswaran Match
Works & Ors. 1975 (2) SCR 973: (1975) 1 SCC 305; Dr.
Sushma Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.1985
SCR 243 : (1985) Supp. SCC 45; University Grants
Commission vs. Sadhana Chaudhary & Ors. 1996 (6) Suppl. E
SCR 392: (1996) 10 SCC 536; Ramrao & Ors. vs. All India .
Backward Class Bank Employees ,Welfare Association & Ors.
2004 (1) SCR 19: (2004) 2 SCC 76; State of Punjab & Ors.
vs. Amar Nath Goyal & Ors. 2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 549:(2005)
6 SCC 754; Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. Director, CBI & Anr. F
(2014) 8 SCC 682; Kedar Nath Tiwari v. State of Bihar 2011
(2) PLJR 401 - referred to.

                    Case Law Reference:
    1979 (2) SCR 476          Referred to       Para 23      G

    2011 (2) SCR 291          Referred to       Para 23
    197 5 .(2) SCR 573        Referred to       Para 23
    1985 SCR 243.             Referred to       Para 23      H
        468      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 12 S.C.R.


    A         1996 (6) Suppl. SCR 392 Referred to             Para 23
-             2004 (1) SCR.19            Referred to          Para 23
           . 2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 549 Referred to              Para 23
           . (2014) 8 SCC 682            Referred to.         Para 24
    B
              2011 (2) PLJR 401          Referred to          Para 32

            CIVIL APPELLALTE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
        11454-11459 of 2014.
    c       From the Judgment & Order dated 17.07.2009 of the High
        Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition Nos. 823., 824,
        826 and 830 to 832 of 2007.

                                     WITH,
    D
        C.A. No. 11460 of 2014.

            Pramod Swarup,. Harish Beeran, Nishe Rajen Shenker,
        Braj Kishore Mishra, Aparna Jha, Faraz Maqbool for the
        Appellant.
    E
            L. Nageshwara Rao, ASG, Subramonium Prasad, AAG,
        B. Balaji, R. Rakesh Sharma, Satya Mitra Garg, Rudreshwar
        Singh, Samir Ali Khan, Yogesh Kanna, Janani for the
        Respondents. .                ·
    F
              The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

              R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted.

           2. Whether proviso to Section 16 Explanation II (5) of Tamil
    G 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
    H
 S. SESHACHALAM v. CHAIRMAN, BAR COUNCIL                      469
       OF TAMIL NADU [R. BANUMATHI, J,]
straight after their law degree did not have any rational basis       A
are the points falling for consideration in these appeals.

      3. Similar challenge is made to 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           B
retiral benefits from their employers from the purview of the
Bihar State Advocates' Welfare Fund Act. For convenience,
appeals challenging the provisions of Tamil Nadu Advocates'
Welfare Fund Act are taken as lead case.

      4. The appellants are retired employees either from             C
government service or other organisations qualified with law
degree who have enrolled themselves as advocates after
retiring from their respective services and now are said to be
practising in courts. Challenging the impugned provision and
Explanation II (5) of Section 16 of.the Tamil Nadu Advocates'         D
Welfare Fund Act, the appellants filed writ petitions contending
that the benefit of Welfare Fund Act is denied to the kin of
advocates who are in receipt of pension or gratuity or other
terminal benefits from any State or Central Government or
organization is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article      E
14 of the Constitution of India.

        5. Learned 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.
Learned single Judge struck down impugned proviso to
                                                                      F
Explanation II (5) of Section 16 holding that the same is violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Aggrieved, 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. The Division Bench held        G
"..... that the distinction made between the member advocates
who enrolled and wotessed law profession from the beginning,
and the advocates who joined law profession after r~tirement.
viz., after completion of nearly 58 years of their life, for the
purpose of conferring lump sum benefit.. .. " is a reasonable         H
     470      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 12 S.C.R.


A     classification and the said classification has a nexus to the
      objects sought to be .achieved and it cannot. be held to be
      arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
    · Challenging the same, the appellants have preferred these
      appeals by way of special leave.
B
       6. Learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Harish 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
  befyleen persons who enrolled a~ advocates after demitting
C 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
D _received are the statutory amounts paid to them for the services
  rendered to the previous employer cmd it is an earned benefit,
  and that cannot form the basis for denial of lump sum t;>enefits.
  The appellants argued that the impugned proviso is repugnant
  and contradictory to Section 2(i) of the Act, which defines the
E term 'member of Fund' and is liable to be struck down as ultra
  vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

        7. Mr. Pramod Swarup learned Senior Counsel for the
  appellants (Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.34326/2012)
F submitted that as per Section 1 (3) of the Bihar State
  Advocates' Welfare Fund· Act, the persons who enrol
  themselves as advocates after retirement and are in receipt of
  retiral benefits are not permitted to take membership under the
  Act. It was contended that the artificial classification made
G amongst homogeneous group of advocates and disentitling
  retired employees - advocates from becoming member of the
  welfare fund is discriminatory and unconsti~utional.

        8. Ml". L. Nageshwara Rao, learned ASG appearing for the
   State of Tamil Nadu contended that the object of Welfare Fund
H. Act is to provide welfare or social security benefits to the
  S. SESHACHALAM v. CHAIRMAN, BAR COUNCIL                    471
        OF TAMIL NADU [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
advocates. who are fully committed to the profession of law and      A
in the event of their death, their legal heirs will be entitled to
receive. the lump sum welfare amount. The learned senior
counsel contended that the distinction made between the
advocates amounts to a reasonable Classification and is
founded on an intelligible differentia which is having a rational    B
nexus with the objects sought to be achieved by the Act in
question.

      9. Mr. Rudreshwar Singh, learned counsel appearing for
the State of Bihar submitted that the Welfare Fund Scheme is
intended only for those young advocates who struggle from C
inception of their profession and not intended for the retired
employees enrolled as advocates who receive pension and
other terminal benefits from their previous employers. Taking
us through the Central legislation-Advocates' Welfare Fund Act
2001 and the provisions of the Welfare Fund Act of other States, D
learned counsel submitted that those legislations do make a·
distinction amongst the advocates receiving pensionary benefits
from their employers and those who set up the practice straight
after completing the law degree.
                                                                 E
      10. We have carefully considered the submissions and
gone through the impugned judgments and perused the
materials on record.

      11. STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS·
 THE ADVOCATES' WELFARE FUND ACT, 2001: The                          F
Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 2001 enacted by the Parliament
enjoins the appropriate Government to constitute a fund to be
 called the "Advocates' Welfare Fund" with the object of
providing social security in the form of finanC:ial assistance to
junior lawyers and welfare scheme for indigent or disabled           G
advocates. The statement and objects read as under:-

    "Social security in the form of financial assistance to junior
    lawyers and welfare schemes for indigent or disabled
    advocates, has long been a matter of concern for the legal       H
    472       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 12 S.C.R.


A         fraternity. Clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 6 and·
          clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 7 of the Advocates
          Act, 1961, confer powers on State Bar Councils. as well
          as the Bar Council of India, inter alia, to constitute through
          their rules one or more funds for the purpose of "giving
B         financial assistance to organise welfare schemes for the
          indigent, disabled or other advocates". Sub-section (3) of
          Section 6 and sub-section (3) of section 7 of the
          Advocates Act further provide that a State Bar Council may
          receive grants, donations, gifts or benefactions for the said
c         purpose which shall be credited to the appropriate fund or
          funds constituted under sub-section (2). Welfare schemes
          havf:l accordingly been introduced in some States. Most
          of the· States have enacted legislations on the subject.
          However, there is neither any uniformity nor the said
          provisions are considered adequate. Moreover, the
D
          Advocates Act does not authorise levy of any welfare fund
          stamp on vakalatnama. There has, therefore, been felt a
          need fo.r a Central legislation applicable to the Union
          territories and the States which do not have their own
          enactments on the subject, for constitution of "Advocates' ·
E         Welfare Fund" by the appropriate Government. The Fund
          will, inter alia, be composed of contributions made by a
          State Bar Council, any voluntary donation or contribution
          by the Bar Council of India, advocates' associations, other·
          associations or institutions or persons, any grant made by
F         the appropriate Government, sums collected by way of
          sale of "Advocates' Welfare Fund Stamps".

          2. All practicing advocates shall become members of the
          Fund on payment of an application fee and annual
G         subscription. The Fund shall vest in and be held and
          applied by the Trustee Committee established by the
          appropriate Government. The Fund will, inter a/ia, be used
          for making ex gratia grant to a member of the Fund in case
          of a serious health problem, payment to a fixed amount on
          cessation of practice .and in case of death of a member,
H
 S. SESHACHALAM v. CHAIRMAN, BAR COUNCIL                 473
       OF TAMIL.NA9U [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
    to his nominee or legal heir, medical and educational       A
    facilities for the members and their dependents, purchase
    of books and for common facilities for advocates. The
    income accrued to the Fund, profits and gains shall be
    exempted from income tax.
                                                                B
    3. The Bill seeks to achieve the above object.·

     12. It is with the same objects and purpose Tamil Nadu
Advocates' Welfare Fund Act 1987 (for short 'Welfare Fund
Act') was also enacted. Some of the provisions of the Welfare
Fund Act are relevant to be noted. Section 2(a) defines         C
"Advocate" as under:-

    "2(a) "Advocate" means a person whose name has been
    entered in the roll of advocates prepared and maintained
    by the Bar Council under section 17 of the Advocates Act,   o
    1961 (Central Act 25 of 1961) and who is a member of a
    Bar Association or an Advocates Association."

    Section 2(i) defines member of the Fund as under:-

    "2(i) "member of the Fund" means an advocate admitted       E
    to the benefits of the Fund and continuing to be a member
    thereof under the provisions of this Act."

    Cessation of practice is defined in Section 2_(e) which
reads as under:-
                                                                F
    "2(e) "cessation of practice" means removal of the name
    of an advocate from the State roll under section 26-A of
    the Advocates Act, 1961 (Central Act 25 of 1961)."

    13. Section 3 of the Welfare Fund Act states that the       G
Government shall constitute a fund called the Tamil Nadu
Advocates' Welfare Fund. Section 3 reads as under:-

    "3. Advocates Welfare Fund

                                                                H
    474         SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014) 12 S.C.R.


A         (1)    The Government shall constitute a fund called the.
                 Tamil Nadu Advocates Welfare Fund.

          (2)    There shall be credited to the Fund-

                  (a)   all amounts paid by the Bar Council under
B                       section 12;

                  (b)   any other contribution made by the Bar
                        Council;

                  (c)   any voluntary donation or contribution made
c
                        to the Fund by the Bar Council of India, any
                        Bar Association, any Advocates Association;
                        or other association or institution, or any
                        advocate or other person;
D                 (d)   any grant made by the Government to the
                        Fund;

                  (e)   any sum borrowed under Section 1O;

                  (f)   all sums collected under Section 15;
E
                  (g)   all sums received from the Life Insurance
                        Corporation of India on the death of an
                        advocate under a Group Insurance Policy;
                                          I


F                 (h)   any profit or dividend or refund received from
                        the Life Insurance Corporation of India in
                        respect of policies of Group Insurance of the
                        members of the Fund;

                  (i)   any interest or dividend or other return on any
G                       investment made of any part of the Fund; and

                  0)    all sums collected by way of sale of stamps
                        under Section 22.

H
          (3)    The sums specified in sub-section (2) shall be paid
 S. SESHACHALAM v. CHAIRMAN, BAR COUNCIL                    475
       OF TAMIL NADU [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
            to, or collected by, such agencies, at such intervals   A
            and in such manner, and the accounts of the Fund
            shall be maintained in such manner, as may be
            prescribed."

     Advocates' Welfare Fund is administered by a Trustee
                                                                    8
Committee. As per the provisions of the Welfare Fund Act, the
fund shall vest in and be held and administered by the Trustee
Committee established under Section 4 of the Act. The
functions of the Trustee Committee is enumerated in Section
9 of the Welfare Fund Act.
                                                                    c
     14. Section 16 of the Welfare Fund Act which is relevant
for these appeals deals with the payment of amount on
cessation of practice. After 2001 amendment, Section 16
reads as under:-
                                                                    D
    "16. Payment of amount on cessation of practice

      (1)   Every advocate who has been a member of the
            Fund for a period of not less than five years shall,
            on his cessation of practice, be paid an amount at
            the rate specified in the Schedule:                     E

    (IA) "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),
    every member of the Fund who has completed or
    completes twenty five years of practice as an advocate on
    the date coming into force of the Tamil Nadu Advocates          F
    Welfare Fund (Amendment) Act, 2000 shall, on completion
    of five years as a member of the Fund and on his cessation
    of practice, be paid a lump sum amount of one lakh
    rupees. (w.e.f. 1.2.2001)

     Provided that where the Trustee Committee is satisfied that    G
     a member of the Fund ceases to practice within a period
     of five years from the date of his admission as a member
     of Fund as a result of "any permanent physical or mental
     disability'', the Trustee Committee may pay the member of
                                                                    H
    476          SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2014] 12 S.C.R.


A         the Fund an amount at the rate specified in the Schedule:

          Explanation I: For the purposes of calculating the number
          of years standing of a member of the Fund for the purpose
          of this sub-section, every four years of practice as an
          advocate before the admission of a member to the Fund
B
          shall be counted as one year's standing and every year of
          practice over and above four years before such admission
          shall be counted equivalent to three months' standing and
          the total number of years of standing so counted shall be
          added to the number of years of practice. ·
c
          Explanation II- (1) The period during which a member of
          the Fund remained under suspension shall not be
          considered for the purpose of counting the years of
          standing.
D
           (2)    Where a member of the Fund dies before receiving
                  the amount payable under sub-section (1 ), his
                  nominees or legal heir, as the case may be, shall
                  be paid the amount payable to the deceased
                  member of the Fund. '
E
           (3)    Any person removed from the membership in the
                  Fund· under sub-section (5) of Section 15 and re-
                  admitted to the Fund under sub-section (6) of that
                  section shail not be entitled to payment of any
F                 amount from the Fund .under this Act during the
                  period between the date of his removal from the
                  membership in the Fund and the date of re-
                  admission.

           (4)    Any member who is suspended by the Bar Council
G
                  for misconduct under the Advocates Act 1961
                  (Central Act 25 of 1961) shall not be entitled to
                  payment of any a111ount from the Fund under this
                  Act, for the period of such suspension.
H
 S. SESHACHALAM v. CHAIRMAN, BAR COUNCIL                     477
       OF TAMIL NADU [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
                                                                    A
     (5)   Where a member of the Fund dies, his
           nominee or legal heir, as the case may be,
           shall be paid an amount of two lakh rupees;

           Provided that if such member who, before his
           death, was in receipt of pension, gratuity or B
           _other terminal benefits frpm any State
           Government or Central Government or other
           authority or employer, his nominee or legal
           heir, as the case may be, shall not be entitled
           for the payment of the amount of two lakh C
           rupees under this sub-section. (w.e.f. 1.2.2001).

     (6)   Every member or his nominee or legal heir, as the
           case may be, shall apply, for payment out of the
           Fund, to the Trustee.Committee, in such form, as         o
           may be prescribed.

     (7)   Where a person, who has been paid an amount
           under sub-section (1) or (1-A) has been admitted
           as an advocate again under section 24 of the
           Advocates Act, 1961 (Central Act 25 of 1961),            E
           desires to be re-admitted to the F~nd shall, on an
           application made in the same manner as specified
           in sections (1) or (1-A) as the case may be with
           interest calculated at the rate of twelve per cent per
           annum, be re-admitted to the Fund. He shall not be       F
           entitled to payment of any amount from the Fund
           under this Act, during the period between the date
           of his cessation of practice and the date of re-
           admission w.e.f. 15.1.1996."
                                                                    G
    15. Explanation II (5) of Section 16 prior to Amendment
2001 stood as under:-

    Explanation II (5) "Where a member of the Fund dies
    within five years of his admission to the Fund, his nominee
    or legal heir, as the case may be, shall be paii:l an amount    H
    478.     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 12 S.C.R.


A        at the rate of one thousand rupees for each year of practice
         by the member of the Fund."

          16. By a careful reading of Section 16, it is evident that
    prior to 2001 amendment, Explanation II (5) of Section 16 of
B   the Welfare Fund Act contemplated that on the death of a
    member of the Fund within five years from the date of his
    admission to the F.und, his nominee or legal heirs _was/were
    eligible for payment at the rate of one thousand rupees for each
    year of his practice. That was because under Section 16(1) of
C   the Welfare Fund Act, the schedule payment is possible only if
    as an advocate he has completed five years as a member of
    the Fund. Explanation II (5) to Section 16 of the Welfare Fund
    Act stood amended with effect from 1.2.2001 as extracted
    above, as per which lump sum amount of two lakh rupees is
    payable on the death of a member of the Fund irrespective of
D   the years of membership of the Fund. After GO. Ms. 688 dated
    19.9.2012, the above financial assistance of two lakh rupees
    payable to the nominee/legal heirs of the deceased advocates
    in terms of Section 16 Explanation II (5) has been enhanced to
    five lakh and twenty five thousand rupees. This lump sum of two
E   lakh rupees (as per Amendment 2001) is denied to a member
    of a Fund who has enrolled himself after retirement from
    government .service or any other organization who was in
    receipt of pension or other terminal benefits.

F      17. Contention of the appellants is that as per dPfinition
  of "advocate" in Section 2 (a) of the Welfare Fund Act, there .
  cannot be a differentiation between the advocates. ReH3nce
  was placed ·upon Section 2(i) of the Welfare Fund Act which
  defines the term "member of the Fund" and it was submitted
G that when once the retired employees like the appellants have
  been admitted as members of the Fund, they should be treated
  equally with others and there cannot be an artificial
  classification made amongst one homogeneous group of
  advocates and such classification is violative of Article 14 of
  the Constitution of India.
H
 S. SESHACHALAM v. CHAIRMAN, BAR COUNCIL                        479
       OF TAMIL NADU [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
      18. As per the scheme of the Welfare Fund Act, every              A.
advocate who has enrolled with the State Bar Council as per
the Advocates Act 1961 would not automatically become a
member of the Advocates' Welfare Fund and it is only those
advocates who applied to the Trustee Committee, can become
member of the Advocates' Welfare Fund. As per Section 15                B·
of the Welfare Fund Act, only those who applied on payment
of membership of Rs.200/- towards application shall be
admitted as a member of the Fund. It is thus not in dispute, not
only the advocates who have enrolled with the Bar Council
immediately after completion of their law degree, but also those        c
who enrolled as advocates after their retirement from other
 employment may become the members of the Advocates'
Welfare Fund. It is only those advocates who have become the
 members of the Advocates' Welfare Fund, are eligible for the
 benefits under the Welfare Fund Act which may be the payment           0
 of schedule amount on cessation of practice in terms of Section
 16 (1) and payment of lump sum amount as per the impugned
 proviso. As per Section 16 (1) of the Act, every advocate who
 has been a member of the Fund for a period of not less than
 five years, on his cessation of practice, be paid an amount at
 the rate specified in the schedule. The proviso to sub-section         E
 (1) of Section 16 enables the Trustee Committee to pay an
 amount to a member of the Fund who ceases to practice within
 a period of five years from the date of his admission as a
 member. Thus, the persons who enrolled as advocates after
 their retirement even though they are denied the benefit of lump       F
 sum payment under the impugned proviso, on cessation of their
 practice, they shall be entitled to the Welfare Fund at the rate
 specified in the schedule. The differentiation of the retired
 employee-advocates who have set up practice as advocates
 after demitting their office, who are in receipt of pension or other   G
 terminal benefits and the advocates who set up practice straight
 from the law college, in our considered view, appears to be
 rational and reasonable. The said classification, in our view, has
 a nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
                                                                        H
     480       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 12 S.C.R.


A          19. Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Tamil Nadu
      Welfare Fund Act clearly states that the Welfare Fund is
    · intended to provide welfare to the advocates and to provide
      them retirement benefits. The Objects and Reasons of Tamil
      Nadu Advocates' Welfare fund Act reads as under:-
B
           STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS

           Tamil Nadu Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987 (Tamil Nadu
           Act 49 of 19S7)                                 ·

c           "The constitution of a Welfare Fund for the payment of
            retirement benefits to the advocates in the State of Tamil
            Nadu and for conferring on them the benefits connected
           therewith or incidental thereto has been engaging the
            attention of this Government for quite some time. The
D           Government have decided to constitute a Fund called the
           Tamil· Nadu Advocates Welfare Fund in the State to
            provide for payment of retirement benefits to ·the
            advocates in the State and for conferring on them the
           'benefits connected therewith or incidental thereto."
            (Underlining added)
E
       20. The main point falling for consideration is whether there
  is nexus between the object of the Act and denial of benefits
  of lump sum welfare fund to retired employees enrolled as
  advocates after their 'retirement under explanation II (5) of
F Section 16 of the Act. As noticed earlier, on cessation of
  practice, the members of the Welfare Fund are entitled to the
  benefits as available in the.schedule to the Welfare Fund Act
  based on the years of service and what is denied is just a lump
  sum amount. It is an established principle that mere hardship
G caused to a group should not be a ground to strike down a law.

       21. Article 14 of the Constitution of India states that "The
  State .shall not deny to any person equality before the law of
  the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India".
H Article 14 forbids class-legislation but it does not forbid
   S. SESHACHALAM v. CHAIRMAN, BAR COUNCIL                      481
         OF TAMIL NADU [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
 reasonable classification. The classification however must not A
 be "arbitrary, artificial or evasive" but must be based on some
 real and substantial bearing, a just and reasonable relation to
 the object sought to be achieved by the legislation. Article 14
 applies where equals are treated differently without any
 reasonable basis. But where equals and unequals are treated B
 differently, Article 14 does not apply. Class legislation is that
 which makes an improper discrimination by conferring particular·
 privileges upon a class of persons arbitrarily selected from a
 large number of persons all of whom stand in the same relation
 to the -privilege ·granted and between those on whom the c
 privilege is conferred whom and the persons not so favoured,
 no reasonable distinction or substantial difference can be found
 justifying the inclusion of one and the exclusion of the other from
 such privilege.

       22. While Article 14 forbids class legislatio~. it does not      D
 forbid reasonable classification of persons, objects, and
 transactions by the legislature for the purpose of achieving
 specific ends. But classification must not be "arbitrary, artificial
 or evasive". It must always rest upon some real and substantial
 distinction bearing a just and reasonable relation to the object       E
 sought to be achieved by the legislation. Classification to be
 reasonable must fulfil the following two conditions:- Firstly, the
 classification must be founded on the intelligible differentia
 which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together
 from others left out of the group. Secondly, the differentia must      F
 have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by
 the Act. The differentia which is the basis of the classification
 and the object of the Act are two distinct things. What is
 necessary is that there must be nexus between the basis of
 classification and the object of the Act. It is only when there is     G
 no reasonable .basis for a classification that legislation making
 such classification may be declared discriminatory.

     23. In Special Courts Bill, 1978 (1979) 1 SCC 380, this
. Court referred to large number of decisions involving
                                                                        H.
    482       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 12 S.C.R.


A interpretation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and
  summarized the principles. In ttie case of National Council for
   Teacher Education vs. Sh.ri Shyam Shiksha Prashikshan
   Sansthan, (2011) 3 SCC 238, Justice Singhvi has elaborated
  the concept of ' Right to Equality' by referring to chain of
B judgments delivered by this Court and established principles
  viz. Union of India & Anr. vs. Parameswaran Match Works &
   Ors., (1975) 1SCC305, Dr. Sushma Sharma & Ors. vs. State
  of Rajasthan & Ors., (1985) Supp. SCC 45, University Grants
  Commission vs. Sadhana Chaudhary & Ors., (1996) 10 SCC
c 536, Ramrao & Ors. vs.· All India Backward Class Bank
  Employees Welfare Association & Ors., (2004) 2 SCC 76 and
  State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Amar Nath Goyal & Ors., (2005) 6
  sec 754 etc.
       24. Rec.ently, in the case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs.
D Director, CBI & Anr., (2014) 8 SCC 682, this Court considered
  the process of classification and what should be regarded as
  a class for purposes of legislation held in paras (58) and (70)
  as under:-

E         "58. The Constitution permits the State to determine, by
          the process of classification, what should be regarded as
          a class for purposes of legislation and in relation to law
          enacted on a particular subject. There is bound to be some
          degree of inequality .when there is segregation of one class
F         from the other. However, such segregation must be rational
          and not artificial or evasive. In other words, the
          classification must not only be based on some qualities
          or characteristics, which are to be found in all persons
          grouped together and not in others who are left out but
          those qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable
G
          relatio.n to the object of the legislation. Differentia'which is
          the basis of classification must be sound and must have
          reasonable relation to the object of the legislation. If the
          object itself is discriminatory, then explanation that
          classification is reasonable having rational relation to the
H         object sought to be achieved is immaterial.
 S. SESHACHALAM v. CHAIRMAN, BAR COUNCIL                          483
       OF TAMIL NADU [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
     70. Undoubtedly, every differentiation is not a                      A
     discrimination but at the same time, differentiation must be
      founded on pertinent and real differences as distinguished
      from irrelevant and artificial ones. A simple physical
     grouping which separates one category from the other
      without any rational basis' is not a sound or intelligible          B
    · differentia. The separation or segregation must have a
      systematic relation and rational basis and the object of
      such segregation must not be discriminatory. Every public
      servant against whom there is reasonable suspicion of
      commission of crime or there are allegations of an offence          c
       under the PC Act, 1988 has to be treated equally and
       similarly under the law. Any distinction made between them
       on the basis of their status or position in service for the
       purposes of inquiry/investigation is noihing but an artificial
       one and offends Article 14."
                                                                          D
      25. In the light of the well-settled principles of interpretation
of Article 14, it is to be seen whether there is intelligible
differentia between 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        E
of pension and other benefits and whether the differentia has
a nexus with the object of the Act.·

      26. The profession of law is a noble calling. The legal
fraternity toils day and night to be successful in the profession.        F
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                     G
opportunity or exposure in their profession. New entrants to the
profession in the initial stages of the profession suffer with the
meagre stipend which young lawyers may receive during their
initial years, coupled with the absence of a legislation
concerning this, they struggle to manage their food, lodging,
                                                                          H
     484     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 12 S.C.R.


A  transportation and other needs. Despite their valiant efforts, they
   are unable. to march ahead in their profession. It is only after
   years of hard work and slogging that some of the fortunate
   lawyers are able to make a name for themselves and achieve
 · success in the profession. For the majority of the legal fraternity,
B everyday is a challenge. Despite the difficult times, the lawyer
   who sets up practice straight after enrolment, struggles to settle
   down himself in the profession. Some of the lawyers remain
   struggling throughout their lives yet choose to remain in the
   profession. It is something like "riding a bicycle uphill with the
c wind against one".
       27. Contrariwise, the retired employees like the appellants
  who are law graduates did not withstand the difficult times in
  the profession. They opted for some other lucrative job during
  their prime time of their life and lived a secured life. Others
D found some job and positioned themselves in a comfortable
  place of employment, chose to join evening college or attended
  part time classes and obtained law degree and having retired
  with comfortable retiral benefits, further securing their future,
  they enrol themselves as an advocate to practice. The retired
E employees have the substantial retiral benefits, gratuity apart
  from receiving pension. The availability of lump sum retiral
  benefits with pension makes a retired employee better placed
  than their counter part lawyers who struggle through difficult·
  times.
F
       28. The various welfare fund schemes are in actuality
  intended for the benefit of those who are in the greatest need
  of them. The lawyers, straight after their enrolment, who join the
  legal profession with high hopes and expectations and dedicate
G their whole lives to the professions are the real deservers.
  Lawyers who enrol themselves after their retirement from
  government services and continue 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 haye devoted their whole lives·
H·
  S. SESHACHALAM v. CHAIRMAN, BAR COUNCIL                      485
        OF TAMIL NADU [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
to the profession. For these retired persons, some amount of          A
 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, in our considered view, the classification of lawyers
·into these two categories is a reasonable classification having      B
 a nexus with the object of the Act.

         29. Furthermore, it is also to be noted that in view of their
  being placed differently than the class of lawyers who chose
  this profession as the sole means of their livelihood, it can C
  reasonably be discerned that the retired persons form a
  separate class. As noticed earlier, 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 the source of the Advocates' Welfare Fund. The retired D
  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 excluded from the benefit
  of the lump sum amount of welfare fund.                              E

     30. Section 28 of the Central legislation-Advocates'
Welfare Fund Act 2001 provides that no senior ~dvocate or a
person in receipt of pension from the Central Government or
State Government shall be entitled to ex-gratia grant under           F
Sections 19, 21 and 24 of the said .A:ct. Thus, the Central Act
as well as the State Act does make a distinction amongst the
advocates on the premise that a group of advocates receive
certain financial assistance from the State Government or the
Central Government or some other employer in 'the form of             G
terminal benefits and 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 Act (Section 16)
contain similar provisions making differentiation between             H
    486      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 12 S.C.R.


A 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. We are unable to agree with the learned counsel
  that the distinction amongst the two class Of advocates is
B unreasonable or irrational.

       31. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court made
  meticulous analysis of various provisions of the Welfare Fund
  Act and· referred to various decisions of this Court dealing with
C interpretation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and rightly
  concluded 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 practiee straight from the law college. It would
  be right to say that the retired officials who joined legal
D profession constitute a separate class and the disentitlement
  of the benefit of lump sum welfare fund to this group of
  advoci;ites carinot be said to be unreasonable. We do not find
  any infirmity in the impugned judgment of the Madras High Court
  and the appeals are liable to be dismissed accordingly.
E
        32. Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition
   No. 34326/2012: Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Bihar
   State A_dvocates' Welfare Fund Act makes it applicable over
   the whole of the State of Bihar. Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of
F the Bihar State Advocates' Welfare Fund Act excludes the
   persons who have enrolled themselves as advocates after their
 . retirement and are in receipt of retiral benefits from the
   government or their employers from the purview of the Welfare
   Fund Act. Advocates Welfare Fund is enacted with the object
G of providing social security in the form cif financial assistance
   to juniors and the welfare scheme for indigent or disabled
   advocates. As the appellants are already in receipt of pension
   from their employers, in our view, there is no arbitrariness in
   excluding them from the applicability of Bihar State Advocates'
   Welfare Fund Act 1983. The Division Bench of the Patna High
H


                                                       ,.
  S. SESHACHALAM v. CHAIRMAN, BAR COUNCIL                    487
        OF TAMIL NADU [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

Court applying its own decision in Kedar Nath Tiwari v. State       A
of Bihar, 2011 (2) PLJR 401, rightly dismissed the writ petition
and we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and the
appeal is liable to be dismissed.

     33. In the result, all the appeals.are dismissed.              B
Nidhi Jain                                     Appeals dismissed.