SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(MP) 865

A.K.MATHUR, S.K.KULSHRESTHA
RAGHU THAKUR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M. P. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.L.SAXENA, N.C.JAIN, N.S.KALE, R.N.SINGHA, R.S.JHA, V.K.TANKHA

A. K. MATHUR, C. J.

( 1 ) IN all these six writ petitions, similar question of law is involved, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order. For convenient disposal of the writ petitions, facts given in M. P. No. 4093 of 1992 are taken into consideration.

( 2 ) THE petitioner has by this writ petition prayed that the provisions of Section 6-A as amended by Amending Act No. 18 of 1992 of M. P. Vidhan Sabha Sadasya Vetan Tatha Bhatta Tatha Pension Adhiniyam, 1972 (for short the Act of 1972) may be declared void as being unconstitutional. The petitioner is a public spirited person and he is said to be National Convenor of Samajwadi Manch. He is also stated to be a social and political worker. He has challenged the validity of Section 6-A of the Act of 1972, as amended by Act No. 18 of 1992, whereby a pension of Rupees 1500/- per mensem has been provided to every member of the M. P. Legislative Assembly and no minimum period of membership has been prescribed for being entitled to receive such a pension. It is contended that even a Member of Legislative Assembly (for short-M. L. A.) who has remained as such for a period of a day, would also be entitled for pension of Rs. 150






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top