Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE27H DAY OF MAY20146TH JYAISHTA, 1936 WA.No. 242 of 2014 () IN WP(C).33683/2007 ------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER
/JUDGMENT
IN WP(C) 33683/2007 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED2509-2013 APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER: ------------------------ ADV.T.P.DAYANANTHAN PADMASREE, TC31571(1), PETTAH P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT LAW DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2. KERALA ADVOCATES' WELFARE FUND TRUSTEE COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE TRUSTEE COMMITTEE BAR COUNCIL BUILDING, KOCHI-682031. R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI (SR.) R2 BY ADV. SMT.NAMITHA JYOTHISH R1 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.I.DAVIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2705-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 242 of 2014 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th May, 2014 JUDGMENT
Manjula Chellur, C.J.
Petitioner is before us challenging judgment of learned Single Judge. The challenge before learned Single Judge is Section 15(1A) of Kerala Advocates Welfare Fund Act, wherein a restriction is brought for an advocate who was previously under service of Central or State Government or any public or private sector undertaking to get admission as a member of Welfare Fund. Section 15(1A) of Kerala Advocates Welfare Fund Act reads as under: "15(1A) An Advocate who is eligible for or availed of any kind of retirement benefits for the service under the Central or State Government or any Public or Private Sector Undertaking, shall not be admitted as a member of the Fund or permitted to resume membership in the Fund" 2. Petitioner mainly relied upon Section 16(5) of Tamil Nadu Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987. Said provision is entirely different from present Section 16(5) of Tamil Nadu Advocate Welfare Fund Act, which reads as under: WA.242/14 2 "16(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 other terminal benefits from any State Government or the 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 rupees under this sub-section." 3. According to learned counsel for appellant, Section 16(5) of Tamil Nadu Advocates Welfare Fund Act and Section 15(1A) of Kerala Advocates Welfare Fund Act stand on similar situation, therefore, decision of the High Court of Judicature, Madras in R.Veeraragavan v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR2007Madras 205) would enure to the benefit of appellant. On going through the said judgment and the discussion made by learned Single Judge, we notice, there is vast difference between the two provisions. Under Tamil Nadu Advocates Welfare Fund Act, members were allowed to get admitted to Welfare Fund and the High court opined that after making contribution for several years, such advocates cannot be denied benefit of the Welfare Fund. So far as Kerala Advocates Welfare Fund Act is concerned, the very admission is denied to such members as provided under Section 15(1A) of the Act. The question is whether this is WA.242/14 3 reasonable restriction or not. As rightly pointed out by learned Single Judge, none of the fundamental rights under Article 14 of the Constitution of India so far as appellant/petitioner is concerned are infringed. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion, learned Single Judge was justified in rejecting the Writ Petition and accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE vgs27.5.14