Rajasthan High Court Upholds Constitutional Validity Of Pension For Ex-MLAs, Dismisses PIL Challenging 1956 Law
The Rajasthan High Court has rejected a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly (Officers and Members Salary, Emoluments, and Pension) Act, 1956 (“Act”), insofar as it provides pensionary benefits to former Members of the Legislative Assembly (“MLAs”).The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur...
The Rajasthan High Court has rejected a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly (Officers and Members Salary, Emoluments, and Pension) Act, 1956 (“Act”), insofar as it provides pensionary benefits to former Members of the Legislative Assembly (“MLAs”).
The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur observed that petitioner's interpretation of reading an implied prohibition against grant of pension to former legislators, in the Constitution, was not correct. Such prohibition could not be inferred in the absence of any express constitutional limitation.
While underscoring the decision in the precedents, the Court further highlighted,
“Once the competence of Parliament to enact laws providing pensionary benefits to Members of Parliament has been recognized, and the State Legislature derives legislative competence in relation to “State pensions” under Entry 42 of List II read with Article 246(3) of the Constitution of India, the challenge raised to the impugned enactment cannot be sustained merely on the ground that Article 195 expressly refers only to “salaries and allowances”.
For context, the Court was hearing a PIL that raised the aforementioned challenge. It was argued that Article 195 of the Constitution only contemplated “salaries and allowances”, payable to the MLAs, and did not expressly mentioned pension. In the absence of any such express constitutional sanction, pensionary benefits could not be conferred upon the MLAs.
It was also submitted, the pension was intrinsically related to the retirement benefit, and ordinarily associated with cessation from service. However, the office of an MLA was a constitutional and political officer to which the concept of retirement was not applicable.
On the contrary, it was argued by the State that the issue in the present matter was already settled by the Supreme Court in Lok Prahari through its General Secretary S.N. Shukla Anr. v. Union of India through its Secretary and Ors., that affirmed pensionary rights to the Members of Parliament who stood on analogous footing to that of MLAs.
After hearing the contentions and considering other precedents on this question, the Court stated that the matters not expressly prohibited by the Constitution and consciously left open for legislative determination, fell within the legislative domain as long as these were enacted within the constitutional limits.
The Court agreed with the argument put forth on behalf of the State, and observed that the Supreme Court did not mandate payment of pension merely because certain provisions contained references to it. Such provisions principally operated to protect the pensionary conditions wherever the pension was otherwise payable under law.
“Supreme Court further rejected the contention that pension can be granted only to government servants upon superannuation and held that the concept of pension is not confined to a traditional employer-employee relationship, taking note of various categories of pensions recognized in law which are independent of conventional government service… absence of an express constitutional provision providing pension to legislators does not, by itself, denude the competent Legislature of its authority to enact such a law.”
In this background, considering the ruling in the aforementioned Supreme Court decision in relation to the members of the parliament, the Court held the constitutional framework governing the members of the parliament and the MLAs stood on similar footing.
State legislative derived power in relation to state pension under Entry 42, List II, 7th Schedule, read with Article 246(3) of the Constitution. In this light, it was held that the challenge raised to the Act merely on the ground that Article 195 only mentioned “salaries and allowance” could not be sustained.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Title: Milap Chand Dandiav v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 198