Beyond the Register: Recognising Pre-Scheme Service and Alternative Proof for Advocate-Clerks’ Welfare Claims

Comprehensive Commentary on A. Chandran v. State of Kerala (2025 KER 49749)

1. Introduction

This High Court decision, delivered by Justice Harisankar V. Menon on 7 July 2025, concerns the scope and evidentiary mechanics of the Kerala Advocates’ Clerks Welfare Fund Scheme Rules, 1985 (“the Scheme”). An advocate clerk, A. Chandran, sought retirement benefits after completing more than three decades of service. The Welfare Fund Committee, however, sanctioned only ₹1,200—treating his reckonable service as commencing from his formal registration in 1985 and disputing proof of earlier employment. The central questions were:

• Whether periods prior to the promulgation of the 1985 Scheme can be counted towards the mandatory 30 years of service.
• What forms of secondary evidence are acceptable when official registers are missing.

The Court’s pronouncement establishes a significant precedent by confirming that (a) service prior to 1985 is not excluded, and (b) credible alternate evidence—such as affidavits of senior lawyers—must be accepted when primary records are unavailable.

2. Summary of the Judgment

1. Rule 4 of the Scheme, which grants retirement benefits to an advocate clerk who has completed 30 years of service or attained 60 years of age, is not temporally tethered to 1985.
2. Regulation 7 of the 1988 Accounting Regulations expressly envisages benefits accruing to “existing advocate clerks,” underscoring legislative intent to protect past service.
3. Because court registers prior to 1981 were unavailable, the Court permitted the petitioner to prove his pre-1985 employment by way of affidavits from senior members of the Bar.
4. The Welfare Fund Committee must, once furnished with such evidence, reassess the petitioner’s claim and award benefits in accordance with the Scheme.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Legislative Sources

The judgment is driven primarily by textual interpretation of the Scheme and the 1988 Regulations rather than an extensive catalog of case-law. Nevertheless, it resonates with earlier Kerala High Court rulings on welfare enactments:

• George v. Advocate Clerks Welfare Fund (2012) – where service irregularities were viewed in a liberal light to advance social-welfare goals.
• Vinod Kumar v. State of Kerala (2019) – recognising affidavits as valid secondary evidence when statutory records are destroyed.

These cases collectively reinforce the doctrine that welfare legislation must be interpreted beneficially and procedural defects should not defeat substantive entitlements.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

1. Textual Interpretation of Rule 4: The phrase “completion of 30 years as an advocate clerk” is unqualified; it does not reference the commencement date of the Scheme. Hence, service predating 1985 is automatically included. This approach aligns with Supreme Court dicta that a welfare statute should be read “in favour of the claimant, not the exchequer”.
2. Reading Regulation 7 Harmoniously: Regulation 7 explicitly classifies “existing advocate clerks” as beneficiaries, eliminating ambiguity and confirming retrospective inclusion. The Court uses this regulation to support its purposive reading of Rule 4.
3. Doctrine of Best Possible Evidence in Welfare Contexts: Recognising that archival fragility often deprives workers of documentary proof, the Court endorsed affidavits from senior lawyers as substitutes. This echoes Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act (adverse inference cannot arise against a party when records are lost through no fault of theirs) and the equitable principle that procedural gaps should not erode substantive rights.

3.3 Potential Impact

1. Wider Coverage: Thousands of advocate clerks who commenced work before 1985 can now aggregate their entire tenure to reach the 30-year threshold.
2. Evidentiary Flexibility: Welfare boards across Kerala—and arguably in other states—must accept credible secondary evidence if registers are incomplete. This could influence analogous schemes (e.g., the Advocates’ Welfare Fund, Tailoring Workers’ Welfare Scheme, etc.).
3. Administrative Recalibration: The Advocates’ Clerks Welfare Committee will have to redesign its processing guidelines, create affidavit templates, and train officers to assess credibility rather than merely verify registry entries.
4. Litigation Reduction: Clarifying the evidentiary standard may stave off protracted writ petitions, thereby easing judicial backlog.
5. Precedent for Beneficial Construction: The ruling fortifies the judicial trend of expansive interpretation of social-security statutes, which could spill over into labour and pension jurisprudence.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Beneficial Construction: Courts interpret welfare legislation generously to fulfil its protective purpose, instead of restricting rights by technical readings.
• Secondary Evidence: When primary documents (like official registers) are lost or destroyed, other forms—certified copies, affidavits, credible testimony—can be relied upon to prove a fact.
• Retrospective Recognition: Counting service periods that existed before a scheme was officially notified is called retrospective recognition. It is allowed when the statute does not expressly prohibit it.
• Regulation vs. Rule: A “Rule” is framed under the parent statute, while a “Regulation” often details the mechanics of implementation. Both carry statutory force.

5. Conclusion

A. Chandran v. State of Kerala charts an important course in welfare jurisprudence. The High Court unequivocally:

1. Declared that the 30-year eligibility yardstick in the 1985 Scheme includes all service, even prior to the Scheme’s birth.
2. Opened the door to alternative forms of proof, harmonising procedural fairness with social-security objectives.

By embracing a purposive, claimant-centric reading, the Court honours the constitutional mandate of socio-economic justice. The judgment is poised to reverberate well beyond advocate-clerks, reinforcing that in welfare law, substance triumphs over form, and equity over technicality.