AIR 2007 MADRAS 205 ::2007 (6) ABR (NOC) 898 (MAD) ::2007 (5) AKAR (NOC) 661 (MAD) ::(2007) 2 Mad LW 830 ::(2007) 4 Ker LT 19 ::(2007) 2 Mad LJ 824 ::(2007) 3 Lab LN 260

Madras High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): M. Jeyapaul , J

Constitution of India , Art.14— Tamil Nadu Advocates Welfare Fund Act (49 of 1987) , S.16(1) Expln.2(5), S.16(1) Proviso— (asinsertedby1995amendment) Benefits of Welfare Fund Act - Legal heirs of advocates who was in receipt of terminal benefits from Govt. or any other employees excluded from entitlement of Rs. Two lacs on death of Advocate - Proviso to S. 16 envisaging same, ultra vires Art. 14 - Reason being, retired employee-Advocates cannot be branded as incompetent for want of commitment to profession - Retired employee-advocates having received retiral benefits from employer do not form a class by themselves. Proviso found in Section 16 Explanation II(5) of the Act, provides that the legal heirs of the member of the Fund who has been in receipt of pension, gratuity or other terminal benefits from any State Government or the Central Government or the other authority of employer are not entitled to the lump sum payment Rs. 2,00,000/- as per the said proviso. The segregation and classification of retired employee Advocates as a class without adverting to their financial status is found to be a discrimination obnoxious to the star Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. The differentiation between advocates who had set up their practice demitting office in an organization and the advocates who set up their practice straight from Law College is not found inte....