The state legislature possesses the constitutional competence to enact laws providing pensionary benefits to former members of the legislative assembly. The absence of an express provision for pension in the constitutional article governing salaries and allowances does not imply a prohibition, as legislative authority is derived from state pension entries.

JUDGMENT :

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 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 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 Mem