IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLALTE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 11454-11459 OF 2014
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.9068-73/2010)
S.SESHACHALAM & ORS. ETC. ..Appellants
Versus
CHAIRMAN, BAR COUNCIL OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. ..Respondents
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 are the points falling for consideration in these appeals. 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 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. The appellants are retired employees either from 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’ 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 pensioner gratuity or other terminal benefits from any State or Central Government or organization is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India….read more