The Rajasthan High Court on Thursday upheld the constitutional validity of pension benefits granted to former Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs), dismissing a public interest litigation (PIL) that challenged the legality of the provision under the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly (Officers and Members Salary, Emoluments and Pension) Act, 1956.
Court's Decision
A division bench comprising Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur rejected the PIL filed by veteran journalist and social activist Milap Chand Dandia after hearing detailed arguments from both sides on the scope of legislative powers relating to pensions for elected representatives.
Petitioner's Arguments
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Vimal Chand Choudhary argued that Article 195 of the Constitution authorises only “salaries and allowances” for members of the legislature and does not expressly permit pensionary benefits for former MLAs. He contended that “pension” is a constitutionally distinct concept recognised separately under Article 366 (17) and, therefore, could not be granted without a specific constitutional sanction.
Choudhary further submitted that pension is traditionally linked to retirement from government service, whereas MLAs hold constitutional political offices where the concept of retirement does not apply in the conventional sense of service jurisprudence. He argued that the legislature exceeded its constitutional authority by extending pension benefits to itself through ordinary legislation.
He also maintained that the Constitution consciously differentiates between “salary”, “allowances” and “pension”, and that elected representatives, who already receive substantial salaries and benefits, could not constitutionally enlarge financial entitlements beyond the framework laid down in the Constitution.
State Government's Response
Opposing the petition, Advocate General Rajendra Prasad defended the validity of the law, arguing that the issue already stood settled by the Supreme Court and several high courts. He referred to the Supreme Court judgment in the Lok Prahari vs Union of India case, which upheld pensionary benefits for Members of Parliament on similar constitutional grounds.
Prasad submitted that the constitutional framework governing MPs and MLAs is substantially similar in matters relating to salaries, allowances and pensions. Therefore, once Parliament’s competence to provide pensions to MPs had been recognised, the state legislature’s authority to enact a similar law for former MLAs could not be questioned.
Conclusion
Accepting these submissions, the high court dismissed the PIL and upheld the constitutional validity of pension benefits for former MLAs in Rajasthan. The judgment reaffirms the legislative competence of state assemblies to provide pensionary benefits to their former members, aligning with established legal precedents.
