https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279037 The Welfare Fund provisions were examined for Article 14 compliance in denying lump sum benefits to advocates who entered practice after retirement and already received pension, gratuity or other terminal benefits. The Court found that such advocates are not similarly placed with those who begin practice immediately after law school, because Fund membership is available only under the statutory scheme and the classification has an intelligible differentia linked to the Act's social security object. The denial of the additional lump sum did not affect other scheme benefits, and hardship alone was insufficient to invalidate the provision. The impugned classification was therefore upheld as reasonable. en-us Tue, 16 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Mar 2019 07:34:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279037 The Welfare Fund provisions were examined for Article 14 compliance in denying lump sum benefits to advocates who entered practice after retirement and already received pension, gratuity or other terminal benefits. The Court found that such advocates are not similarly placed with those who begin practice immediately after law school, because Fund membership is available only under the statutory scheme and the classification has an intelligible differentia linked to the Act's social security object. The denial of the additional lump sum did not affect other scheme benefits, and hardship alone was insufficient to invalidate the provision. The impugned classification was therefore upheld as reasonable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 16 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279037