Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Urn: Cw / 38326U / 2022Milap Chand Dandia … vs State Of Rajasthan … on 7 May, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:19308-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19134/2022
Milap Chand Dandia Son Of Late Shri Gendilal Ji Dandia, aged
around 91 years, resident of C-5 Chikitsalaya Marg, Bapu Nagar,
Jaipur. (Moile No. 94140-41879), Email -
[email protected])
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan through Chief Secretary of the Government
of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vimal Chand Choudhary, with
Mr. Yogesh Kumar Tailor,
Ms. Vinita Sharma,
Mr. Amit Kumar Soni.
Mr. Gaurav Choudhary.
Mr. Honey Saini, &
Mr. Vijay Pratap Sharma.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Sr. Adv. &
Advocate General, assisted by
Ms. Dhriti Laddha.
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
JUDGMENT
Reportable
07/05/2026
1. The present writ petition, instituted in the nature of a Public
Interest Litigation, has been preferred by the petitioner
questioning the constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Legislative
Assembly (Officers and Members Salary, Emoluments and
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 12:37:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 08:07:22 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:19308-DB] (2 of 15) [CW-19134/2022]
Pension) Act, 1956, insofar as it provides pensionary benefits to
former Members of the Legislative Assembly. The petitioner has
also assailed the subsequent amendments extending additional
benefits to such members.
1.1. The reliefs sought in the writ petition read as under:
“In the premise aforesaid it is respectfully prayed:
(i) that the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly (Officers and
Members Salary, Emoluments and Pension Act, 1956 (Act 6 of
1957) granting or allowing payment of Pension to MLAs and
Rules made there under Annexure 1 and 2 be declared
unconstitutional, illegal, ultra vires, void and unenforceable.
(2) to restrain the Government of Rajasthan from making
payment to the MLAs, as per the Pension Act, 1956 or to make
payment of Pension pursuant to recently passed enactment in
the name and style of ‘Rajasthan Legislative Assembly (Officers
and Members Emoluments and Pension Amendment) Act‘
whereby the MLAs will become entitled to get reimbursement of
their travel abroad with effect from the date it is made
applicable.
(3) the Government of Rajasthan may kindly be directed to
recover the amount of Pension under the Public Demand
Recovery Act or the Land Revenue Act, 1956 or by taking other
steps for the recovery and same may be deposited in the
Treasury of the State with interest @ 12% per month.
(4) Issue any such other and further orders in the addition to
or in substitution for the above prayers as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case.”
2. Mr. Vimal Chand Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner, has submitted before this Court that the
foundational constitutional provision germane to the controversy is
Article 195 of the Constitution of India, which contemplates only
the “salaries and allowances” payable to Members of the
Legislative Assembly and does not expressly authorize grant of
pension. Article 195 reads as follows:
“195. Salaries and allowances of members:
Members of the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council
of a State shall be entitled to receive such salaries and
allowances as may from time to time be determined, by the(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 12:37:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 08:07:22 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:19308-DB] (3 of 15) [CW-19134/2022]Legislature of the State by law and, until provision in that respect
is so made, salaries and allowances at such rates and upon such
conditions as were immediately before the commencement of
this Constitution applicable in the case of members of the
Legislative Assembly of the corresponding Province.”
2.1. Learned counsel further drew the attention of this Court to
Entry 38 of List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule to the
Constitution, which is reproduced hereunder:
“List-II – State List
38. Salaries and allowances of members of the Legislature of the
State, of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Legislative
Assembly and, if there is a Legislative Council, of the Chairman
and Deputy Chairman thereof.”
2.2. Learned counsel also referred to Article 366(17) of the
Constitution of India defining the expression “pension”, and
submitted that pension is a constitutionally distinct concept
separately recognized under the Constitution. It was contended
that, in the absence of any express constitutional sanction under
Article 195 or elsewhere, pensionary benefits could not have been
legislatively conferred upon Members of the Legislative Assembly.
Article 366(17) reads as under:
“(17) “pension” means a pension, whether contributory or not, of
any kind whatsoever payable to or in respect of any person, and
includes retired pay so payable; a gratuity so payable and any sum
or sums so payable by way of the return, with or without interest
thereon or any other addition thereto, of subscriptions to a
provident fund;”
2.3. Learned counsel submitted that while the State Legislature
may legitimately enact laws relating to salaries and allowances
payable during the tenure of office of Members of the Legislative
Assembly, the conferment of pensionary benefits, in the absence
of an express constitutional provision or constitutional
amendment, travels beyond the scope of Article 195 of the
Constitution of India and therefore cannot be sustained in law.
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 12:37:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 08:07:22 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:19308-DB] (4 of 15) [CW-19134/2022]
2.4. He further submits that pension is intrinsically a post-
retirement benefit ordinarily associated with cessation from
service, whereas the office of a Member of the Legislative
Assembly is a constitutional and political office to which the
concept of retirement, in the strict service jurisprudence sense, is
inapplicable. Learned counsel therefore contends that the
respondents lacked constitutional authority to enact legislation
providing pension to former Members of the Legislative Assembly.
2.5. Learned counsel further submitted that Entry 38 of List II of
the Seventh Schedule only empowers the State Legislature to
enact laws with respect to “salaries and allowances” of members
of the Legislature and does not contemplate pensionary benefits.
According to learned counsel, the legislative competence exercised
by the respondents in the present case is therefore beyond the
scope of the constitutional scheme.
2.6. Learned counsel also submitted that the Constitution
consciously employs distinct expressions such as “salary”,
“allowances” and “pension”, and wherever the framers of the
Constitution intended to provide pensionary protection to
constitutional functionaries, specific provisions in that regard were
incorporated. It was contended that in the absence of such
express constitutional recognition, the State Legislature could not
have extended pensionary benefits to itself through ordinary
legislation.
2.7. Learned counsel further argued that constitutional limitations
cannot be expanded by legislative enactment in a manner that
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 12:37:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 08:07:22 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:19308-DB] (5 of 15) [CW-19134/2022]
enables elected representatives to confer additional financial
benefits upon themselves beyond the constitutional framework.
2.8. Learned counsel further submits that the Members of
Legislative Assembly are already entitled to substantial salaries,
allowances and other emoluments under the prevailing statutory
framework, and therefore, the extension of pensionary benefits
and enhancement thereof on the basis of tenure raises a
substantial constitutional issue requiring consideration by this
Hon’ble Court.
2.9. In support of such submissions, learned counsel has relied
upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Lok Prahari through its General Secretary S.N. Shukla &
Anr. v. Union of India through its Secretary and Ors.
reported in (2018) 16 SCC 696. The relevant excerpts
therefrom, which are germane to the present controversy, are
reproduced hereunder:
“12. Article 322 declares that the expenses of Public Service
Commissions shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund of India
and such expenses include “salaries, allowances and pensions”
payable to or in respect of the members or staff of the
Commission.
20. The submissions of the Appellants proceed on the wrong
assumption that certain provisions of the Constitution mandate
the payment of pension to persons who hold constitutional
offices like the Judges of this Court. We have already examined
the language of the relevant provisions of the Constitution. We
are of the opinion that, on a true and proper construction of the
text of those provisions, they do not mandate the payment of
pension. They only protect the pension if payable under the
relevant law applicable on the date of appointment of a person
to any one of those offices by declaring that such a condition
could not be altered to the detriment of a person subsequent to
his appointment.
21. However, the constitutional obligation to pay pension to
persons who hold such offices may arise by implication having
regard to the overall scheme of the Constitution relevant to
those offices. The need to secure the independence of the
holders of those offices by assuring them that either the
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 12:37:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 08:07:22 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:19308-DB] (6 of 15) [CW-19134/2022]
legislature or the executive will not be able to deprive them of
the financial resources necessary to keep them away from
impecuniousness, irrespective of the fact that a decision taken
by the incumbents of each of those offices in discharge of the
official responsibilities is acceptable or not either to the
legislature or the executive. We must hasten to add that we
must not be understood to be making any final declaration of
law in this regard.”
3. Per contra, Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned Senior Counsel and
Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondent-State,
assisted by Ms. Dhriti Laddha, submitted that the controversy
involved in the present writ petition is no longer res integra,
inasmuch as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lok Prahari (supra)
has already considered and settled the issue relating to grant of
pensionary benefits to legislators in the context of Members of
Parliament, which, according to learned counsel, stands on a
footing analogous to that of Members of the Legislative Assembly.
3.1. Learned Advocate General further submits that the grounds
of challenge raised in the present proceedings are substantially
similar to those considered and repelled by the Hon’ble Apex Court
in the aforesaid judgment and, therefore, the issue stands
concluded by binding precedent. It was submitted that no fresh
adjudication on the same constitutional issue is warranted by this
Hon’ble Court.
3.2. In support of his submissions, learned Advocate General has
relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Allahabad High
Court in Uttar Pradesh Janhit Sagthan v. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Ors. (Writ Petition No.225 of 1985) decided on
September 19, 1989. The relevant and operative portion thereof
reads as under:
“36. We may assume that the attributes of the Indian Republic
are as stated by the learned counsel, but we fail to appreciate(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 12:37:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 08:07:22 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:19308-DB] (7 of 15) [CW-19134/2022]how thereby the representatives of the people are debarred from
framing laws for themselves which will ensure them some
benefits which will be available to them when they cease to be
members of legislature. Legislation is the exclusive right of the
legislature. If a legislation is required for legislature, the same
will have to be framed by the legislature itself. Under entries 38
and 39 of List II sitting members of the State legislature are
entitled to frame laws for themselves which will govern them
during their tenure of membership. We have held hereinabove
that the term “State pension” in entry 42 covers pension to ex-
legislators. Thus sitting legislators can frame such laws also
which would govern them after they have ceased to be members
of the legislature. Our attention has not been drawn to any
authority or treatise on Socialism or democracy which debars ex-
legislators from accepting benefits from the State for then past
services nor which debars the legislature of a Socialist
Democratic Republic from granting benefits, including pensionery
benefits, to its ex-legislators. Accordingly we are unable to hold
that the basic structure of the Constitution disables the State
legislature from granting pension to its ex-members.
55. We have already held hereinabove that the State legislature
was competent under Entry 42 of List II to enact the impugned
law. Accordingly, the challenge based on colourable exercise of
power must fail. The legislature of the State of Tamil Nadu has
also provided for payment of pension to its ex-members and this
provision was challenged by Miss Lily Thomas, an Advocate of
the Supreme Court but the challenge failed (see AIR 1985 Mad
240 Lily Thomas v. State of Tamil Nadu, The initial challenge in
this case was based on total lack of power to enact the law. This
lack of power was pleaded with reference to Arts. 186 and 195
read with Entry 38 of List II of the Seventh Schedules which
were silent as to pension for ex-members of the legislature. The
Madras High Court negatived the challenge observing that the
source of power was contained in Art. 42. An argument some
what similar to that raised before us was raised before the
Madras High Court also. It was contended that the members of
the legislature were trustees of the public exchequer and in
common law trustees were incompetent to provide for their own
beneficial enjoyment of the trust fund during their short term as
trustees and much more so, after the expiration of the
trusteeship unless the deed of trust, namely, the Constitution,
made provision therefor either expressly or by necessary
implication. The payment of pension was described as an illegal
and gratuitos cash dole without any consideration or quid pro
quo which members of the legislature had voted as life long
reward for themselves in abuse of their high constitutional
powers. The submissions were negatived with the following
observations continued in paragraph 14 of the report at page
246:–
“These submissions are high sounding and may look
attractive if looked at besides the constitutional sphere.
So far as this court is concerned, it shall confine its
adjudication of the controversy raised before it over the
legislative competency by the Yard-stick found in the(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 12:37:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 08:07:22 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:19308-DB] (8 of 15) [CW-19134/2022]Constitution itself. If a power has been assumed, which
has no foundation in the Constitution, that will be an
incompetent power and the resultant statute would be
struck down. But, if the power is available and could-be
spelt out under the Constitutional provisions, it is not
possible for this court to bring in any other legal
conceptions; or any ethical, social and political
conceptions and strike down the legislation which is
otherwise constitutionally valid.”
56. We are in respectful agreement with the above view.
57. The above judgment was by a learned single Judge. There
was an appeal before a Division Bench which also failed. The
appellate judgment of the Division Bench is reported in AIR 1986
SC 290 Miss Lily Thomas v. State of Tamil Nadu.”
3.3. Reliance has also been placed by the learned Advocate
General upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Gujarat High
Court in Narayanlal Himatlal Bhatt & Ors. v. State of Gujarat
(Special Civil Application No.1676 of 1986) decided on April
4, 1986, wherein the Hon’ble Court, while examining Article
246(3) read with Entry 42 of List II of the Seventh Schedule, held
that the State Legislature possesses exclusive legislative
competence with respect to “State pensions”, including pension
payable to former Members of the Legislative Assembly. The
relevant portion reads as follows:
“3. We have carefully considered all these arguments advanced
by the party-in-person. There is absolutely no difficulty in
appreciating and reading the various provisions of the
Constitution wherein they speak of salary and other conditions of
service to various functionaries. As far as the members of the
State Legislature are concerned, Article 194 deals with powers,
privileges etc. of the Houses of Legislatures and of the members
and committees thereof. Article 195 deals with salaries and
allowances of members. The said Article reads as follows:
“195. Members of the Legislative Assembly and the
Legislative Council of a State shall be entitled to receive
such salaries and allowances as may from time to time be
determined by the Legislature of the State by law and,
until provision in that respect is so made, salaries and
allowances at such rates and upon such conditions as
were immediately before the commencement of this
Constitution applicable in the case of members of the
Legislative Assembly of the corresponding province.”
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 12:37:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 08:07:22 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:19308-DB] (9 of 15) [CW-19134/2022]
4. No doubt this Article mentions only salaries and allowances
and does not speak about pension. That does not mean that the
Constitution prohibits payment of pension by appropriate
enactment. It is too much to argue that there is an implied
ouster of such privileges since this Article 195 speaks only of
salaries and allowances without any reference to pension.
According to the party-in-person, the payment of pension is
detrimental to national interest and is an unauthorised drain of
the consolidated funds of the State. When there is no
constitutional prohibition for enacting such a law, the
Legislature, in its wisdom, thought it fit to pay pension to the
members who have served the State as the members of the
Legislative Assembly. They have fixed up in the said Act the
necessary criteria to receive the pension and such a decision is
within the legislative competence of the State Legislature and
cannot in any way be said either unconstitutional or against the
Nation’s interest. No doubt the words ‘pension’, ‘allowance’,
‘privilege’, ‘salary’, ‘remuneration’, and ’emoluments’ have
different connotations and are awarded in the context of such
services rendered by the person concerned.
9. As we have stated in paragraph supra, we do not find any
prohibition in the Articles referred above against enacting the
Gujarat Legislative Assembly Members’ Pension Act, 1984. It
cannot also be said that there is implied ouster of enacting the
law providing pension to the members of the Legislative
Assembly from the words of Article 195 of the Constitution. Art.
246 of the Constitution clearly states as follows:
“246.(1) Notwithstanding anything in clauses (2) and (3),
Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect
to any of the matters enumerated in List I in the Seventh
Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the “Union
List”).
(2) Notwithstanding anything in Clause (3), Parliament,
and, subject to Clause (1), the Legislature of any State
also, have power to make laws with respect to any of the
matters enumerated: in List III in the Seventh Schedule
(in this Constitution referred to as the “Concurrent List”).
(3) Subject to Clauses (1) and (2), the Legislature of any
State has exclusive power to make laws for such State or
any part thereof with respect to any of the matters
enumerated in List II in the Seventh Schedule (in this
Constitution referred to as the “State List”).
(4) Parliament has power to make laws with respect to
any matter for any part of the territory of India not
included in a State notwithstanding that such matter is a
matter enumerated in the State List.”
Entry 42 of List II of the Seventh Schedule states:
“42. State pensions, that is to say, pensions payable by
the State or out of the Consolidated Fund of the State.”
10. Reading this Entry along with Article 246(3), it is clear that
the State has exclusive power to make laws for such State or
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 12:37:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 08:07:22 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:19308-DB] (10 of 15) [CW-19134/2022]
any part there of with respect to the pension payable by the
State or out of the Consolidated Fund of the State. Such
provision for payment of pension will not in any way come into
conflict with Article 195 of the Constitution, but, on the other
hand, it will be only an additional benefit that is sought to be
conferred upon the members of the Legislative Assembly to have
served the State in that capacity.
11. Thus, from the foregoing discussion, we have absolutely no
hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the Gujarat
Legislative Assembly Members’ Pension Act, 1984 is intra vires
the Constitution and that the State Government has ample
legislative competence to promulgate such a law. For all these
reasons, the Special Civil Application is dismissed. Mr. M.C.
Shah, the learned counsel for the petitioners, at this stage, orally
applies for leave to appeal to Supreme Court. In our view, this is
not a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court as it does not
involve substantial question of law which needs to be decided by
the Supreme Court. Oral application for leave to appeal to
Supreme Court is, therefore, rejected.”
3.4. Learned Advocate General further relied upon the judgment
rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Purwa
Jain v. Union of India (Writ Petition No.18527 of 2020)
decided on 19th of July, 2022, wherein the constitutional validity
of pensionary provisions applicable to Members of the Legislative
Assembly was upheld. The Hon’ble Court held:
“07. So far as the constitutional validity of Section 6A(1) and (3)
of the Adhiniyam of 1972 is concerned, the validity of entire
Section 6A was challenged before this Court in the case of Raghu
Thakur v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in I.L.R.
(1996) M.P. 334 and vide order dated 26.09.1996, this Court has
dismissed the writ petition. The Division Bench has held that the
Adhiniyam of 1972 is intra vires and it is within the competence
of the State Legislature under Article 195 of the Constitution read
with Entry 42 of List II of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution to
legislate on a pension of members of Assembly. Therefore, the
entire Section 6A(1) has been upheld by this Court. The
petitioner being an advocate ought to have done homework
before filing this petition challenging the constitutional validity of
Section 6A(1).
08. So far as pension payable to the M.Ps. and M.L.As. is
concerned, the same issue came up for consideration before the
Apex Court in the case of Lok Prahari Through Its General
Secretary S.N. Shukla & Another v/s Union of India Through Its
Secretary & Others reported in (2018) 16 SCC 696. The Apex
Court negatived all the arguments which satisfy all the queries in
the mind of the petitioner as raised by her by way of the present
petition. Paragraphs 20, 21 & 26 of the aforesaid judgment are
reproduced below:-
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 12:37:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 08:07:22 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:19308-DB] (11 of 15) [CW-19134/2022]“20.The submissions of the Appellants proceed on the
wrong assumption that certain provisions of the
Constitution mandate the payment of pension to persons
who hold constitutional offices like the Judges of this
Court. We have already examined the language of the
relevant provisions of the Constitution. We are of the
opinion that, on a true and proper construction of the text
of those provisions, they do not mandate the payment of
pension. They only protect the pension if payable under
the relevant law applicable on the date of appointment of a
person to any one of those offices by declaring that such a
condition could not be altered to the detriment of a person
subsequent to his appointment.
21. However, the constitutional obligation to pay pension
to persons who hold such offices may arise by implication
having regard to the overall scheme of the Constitution
relevant to those offices. The need to secure the
independence of the holders of those offices by assuring
them that either the legislature or the executive will not be
able to deprive them of the financial resources necessary
to keep them away from impecuniousness, irrespective of
the fact that a decision taken by the incumbents of each of
those offices in discharge of the official responsibilities is
acceptable or not either to the legislature or the executive.
We must hasten to add that we must not be understood to
be making any final declaration of law in this regard.
26. Another argument advanced by the Appellants is that
pension is payable to an employee of State after his
superannuation. Since MPs are not employees of State,
they are not entitled for pension nor the Parliament is
competent to provide payment of pension to the ex-MPs.
In our opinion, there is a fallacy in the above submission,
insofar as it assures that pension is only payable to former
employees of State and nobody else. Such a submission
emanates from the fact that certain payments made to the
former employees of State are called pensions and the
misconception of the Appellants that the expression
‘pension’ can only have one meaning. There are various
other categories of payments made by State which are
called ‘pensions’, such as, Old Age Pension, Widow
Pension, and Disability Pension etc.”
09. In the case of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v/s Union of India &
Another reported in (2019) 11 SCC 683, the Apex Court has held
that the mere fact that M.P. / M.L.A. draws salary under the Act
of 1954 and different allowances under different Rules framed
under the said Act does not result in the creation of a relationship
of employer and employee between Government and the
Legislature despite the description of payment received by them
in the name of salary. Even the expansive definition of the term
pension in the General Clause of 1897 will be of no away,
therefore, the contention of the petitioner is baseless that there
should be a minimum eligibility period for grant of pension to the
M.Ps. and M.L.As. as provided for pension rules applicable to the
Government employees / public servants. Hence, entire Public
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 12:37:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 08:07:22 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:19308-DB] (12 of 15) [CW-19134/2022]
Interest Litigation is devoid of substance and filed without proper
research.”
3.5. Learned Advocate General therefore submitted that the
impugned enactment is fully traceable to the legislative
competence of the State Legislature under Article 246(3) read
with Entry 42 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution
of India and does not suffer from any constitutional infirmity
warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length
and perused the material available on record, alongwith the
judgments cited at the Bar.
5. The principal challenge raised in the present writ petition
pertains to the constitutional validity of the provisions granting
pensionary benefits to former Members of the Legislative
Assembly under the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly (Officers and
Members Salary, Emoluments and Pension) Act, 1956. The
challenge primarily rests upon the interpretation of Article 195 of
the Constitution of India, Article 366(17), and Entry 38 of List II of
the Seventh Schedule.
6. The case of the petitioner, in essence, is that Article 195 of
the Constitution contemplates only “salaries and allowances”
payable to Members of the Legislative Assembly and, therefore, in
the absence of an express constitutional provision authorizing
payment of pension, the State Legislature lacked competence to
enact the impugned provisions. The petitioner has further sought
to contend that pension, being a constitutionally distinct concept
separately defined under Article 366(17) of the Constitution of
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 12:37:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 08:07:22 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:19308-DB] (13 of 15) [CW-19134/2022]India, could not have been legislatively extended to former
Members of the Legislative Assembly without a constitutional
amendment. This Hon’ble Court is unable to accept the aforesaid
contention.
7. At the outset, this Court finds that the controversy involved
in the present writ petition is no longer res integra and stands
substantially covered by the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Lok Prahari (supra), wherein a similar
challenge relating to pensionary benefits payable to Members of
Parliament came to be considered and rejected.
7.1. The Hon’ble Apex Court, while examining the constitutional
scheme governing pensionary benefits to legislators and
constitutional functionaries, observed that the Constitution does
not mandate payment of pension merely because certain
constitutional provisions contain references thereto, and clarified
that such provisions principally operate to protect pensionary
conditions wherever pension is otherwise payable under law. The
Hon’ble 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.
8. This Court has also taken note of the precedents relied upon
by learned Advocate General, which consistently affirm the legal
position that matters not expressly prohibited by the Constitution,
and consciously left open by the framers of the Constitution for
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 12:37:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 08:07:22 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:19308-DB] (14 of 15) [CW-19134/2022]
legislative determination by the State or Parliament, fall within the
legislative domain so long as the enactment remains within
constitutional limits. Once the issue stands settled by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, the same cannot be reopened merely on the basis
of a different interpretation sought to be advanced before this
Court.
9. This Court is further of the considered opinion that the
binding judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lok
Prahari (supra), though rendered in the context of Members of
Parliament, squarely addresses the principal issues raised in the
present writ petition. The Hon’ble Apex Court, after an elaborate
examination of the constitutional scheme, held that the 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.
10. This Court also finds that the constitutional framework
governing Members of Parliament and Members of the Legislative
Assembly, insofar as salaries, allowances and pensionary benefits
are concerned, stands on substantially similar footing. 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”.
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 12:37:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 08:07:22 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:19308-DB] (15 of 15) [CW-19134/2022]
11. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner
essentially seeks to read into the Constitution an implied
prohibition against grant of pensionary benefits to former
legislators. Such a prohibition, however, cannot be inferred in the
absence of any express constitutional limitation, particularly when
the Constitution itself recognizes “State pensions” as a distinct
legislative field under Entry 42 of List II of the Seventh Schedule.
12. This Court is also conscious of the settled principle that
matters of legislative policy fall within the domain of the
Legislature. The scope of judicial review in such matters is limited
to examining legislative competence and constitutional validity.
Once an enactment is found to be within the constitutional
framework, interference by this Court would not be warranted.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the settled legal
position governing the field, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the petitioner has failed to make out any ground warranting
interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
14. Consequently, the present writ petition, being devoid of
merit, is hereby dismissed.
15. All pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
4-Zeeshan
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 12:37:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 08:07:22 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
