Pension Benefits For Former MLAs Is Constitutional, Says Rajasthan HC Rejecting PIL

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the public interest litigation (PIL) that sought to scrap the pension benefits granted to the former Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs). The court upheld the constitutional validity of pension benefits to the former MLAs, putting an end to the question of whether the state legislation has the authority to grant itself a lifelong pension through ordinary legislation. The court, in its judgment, clarified the legal framework that governs the salaries and emoluments of the political office-holders in the state.

The matter started with the PIL regarding the pension benefits extended to the former MLAs without explicit constitutional backing, filed by Milap Chand Dandia (petitioner), veteran journalist and social activist. The centre of the argument was the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly (Officers and Members Salary, Emoluments and Pension) Act, 1956. According to Dandia, the state has the power to set the salary of the MLAs, but extending the payment into retirement as a pension is a step too far without explicit constitutional backing.

As reported by the Times of India, the division bench comprising Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur heard the arguments around the scope of legislative powers and constitutional limitations, and held the pension benefits not invalid as per the law.

The petitioner’s advocate (Vimal Chand Choudhary) argued that Article 195 of the Constitution only authorises ‘salaries and allowances’ for sitting members and does not expressly mention the ‘pension’ for former members. He also pointed out that the pension should not be considered the same as salary, as it is defined as a distinct concept under Article 366 (17). A pension is a benefit, typically associated with retirement. He maintained that MLAs hold political offices and not the traditional service roles, and thus, the concept of retirement does not apply to them in a way that justifies a state-funded pension for them.

The defence counsel (Advocate General Rajendra Prasad) representing the State, argued that the same type of matter had already been settled by the higher judiciary in previous cases. He cited the precedent, the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Lok Prahari Vs Union of India case, in which the apex court upheld the pensioner benefits for the Members of Parliament (MPs). He contended that the constitutional frameworks for MPs and MLAs are largely similar, and thus, the state legislature must also hold that authority to extend pension benefits to the former MLAs.

The court noted the arguments and accepted the Advocate General’s submissions about the parity between the powers of Parliament and state legislatures in these matters, and dismissed the PIL. The court affirmed that the legislature did not bypass its constitutional authority by extending the pension to former MLAs.  

FAQs: