Back
1996 Supreme(MP) 865
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
A. K. MATHUR, S. K. KULSHRESTHA
RAGHU THAKUR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M.P. - Respondents
M. P. 4093 Of 1992
Decided On : 09/26/1996
A.L.SAXENA, N.C.JAIN, N.S.KALE, R.N.SINGHA, R.S.JHA, V.K.TANKHA
The State Legislature is competent to legislate on pension of members of the Assembly under Art. 195 of the Constitution read with Entry 42 of List II of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.
Headnote:
MADHYA PRADESH VIDHAN SABHA SADASY VETA TATHA BHATTA TATHA PENSION ADHINIYAM, 1972 - SECTION 6-A - VALIDITY - PENSION TO MEMBERS OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY - MINIMUM PERIOD OF MEMBERSHIP - CONSTITUTIONALITY - COLOURABLE EXERCISE OF POWER.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a public-spirited person and National Convenor of Samajwadi Manch, challenged the validity of Section 6-A of the Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha Sadasya Vetan Tatha Bhatta Tatha Pension Adhiniyam, 1972 (the Act), as amended by Act No. 18 of 1992, which provided a pension of Rs. 1500/- per month to every member of the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly without prescribing any minimum period of membership. The petitioner contended that this provision was violative of Art. 159 of the Constitution of India and was a colourable exercise of legislative power.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha Sadasya Vetan Tatha Bhatta Tatha Pension Adhiniyam, 1972 was intra vires and it was within the competence of the State Legislature under Art. 195 of the Constitution read with Entry 42 of List II of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution to legislate on pension of members of the Assembly. The Court further held that the provision in Section 6a of the Act providing no minimum period could not be said to be a colourable exercise of power, but appeared to be an inadvertent omission. The Court left it to the wisdom of the State Legislature to lay down some yard stick in the matter of fixing some minimum qualifying period for being eligible to pension, keeping in view the provisions existing in other State Assemblies/parliament where minimum period has been prescribed.
Issues: 1. Whether the Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha Sadasya Vetan Tatha Bhatta Tatha Pension Adhiniyam, 1972 was intra vires the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the provision in Section 6a of the Act providing no minimum period could be said to be a colourable exercise of power?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha Sadasya Vetan Tatha Bhatta Tatha Pension Adhiniyam, 1972 was intra vires the Constitution of India. The Court relied on Entry 42 of List II of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, which empowers the Assembly to legislate on State Pensions, and Art. 195 of the Constitution, which talks about salaries and allowances of members of Legislative Assembly. The Court held that the word 'allowances' in Art. 195 could be interpreted to include 'pension'. 2. The Court held that the provision in Section 6a of the Act providing no minimum period could not be said to be a colourable exercise of power. The Court noted that there was no specific provision in the Constitution for pension to members of the Assembly, and that the Legislature was competent to lay down the pension for its members. The Court also noted that the Act did not lack legislative competence.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the validity of Section 6-A of the Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha Sadasya Vetan Tatha Bhatta Tatha Pension Adhiniyam, 1972. The Court left it to the wisdom of the State Legislature to lay down some yard stick in the matter of fixing some minimum qualifying period for being eligible to pension, keeping in view the provisions existing in other State Assemblies/parliament where minimum period has been prescribed.
( 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. 1500/- per mensem and this is violative of Art. 159 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that by not providing the requisite minimum period of membership, the enactment is in colourable exercise of legislative power and hence S. 6-A as amended by Act No. 18 of 1992 may be declared ultra vires.
( 3 ) IN order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be relevant to refer to amend Section 6-A of the Act which reads as under :"6-A. (1) There shall be paid a pension of one thousand five hundred rupees per mensem to every person who has served as a member of the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly;provided that where any person has served as aforesaid for a period exceeding five years, there shall be paid to him as additional pension of one hundred rupees per mensem for every year in excess of five years. Explanation : For the purpose of this sub-section 'a member of the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly' shall include persons who become member of the Legislative Assembly of the new State of Madhya Pradesh by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 28 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (No. 37 of 1956)". Prior to this amendment by Act No. l8 of 1992 Section 6-A of the Act of 1972 prescribed membership of the Assembly for a period of five years for purposes of being eligible for pension. Section 6-A as originally stood reads thus :"6-A. Pension. (1) As and from the Ist day of November, 1976 there shall be paid a pension of three hundred rupees per mensem to every person who has served, for a period of five years whether continuous or not, as a member of the Madhya Pradesh Legislaive Assembly:provided that where any person has served as aforesaid for a period exceeding five years, there shall be paid to him an additional pension of thirty rupees per mensem for every year in excess of five, so, however, that in no case the pension payable to such person shall exceed four hundred and fifty rupees per mensem. Explanation - For the purpose of this sub-section, 'a member of the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly' shall include persons who become members of the Legislative Assembly of the new State of Madhya Pradesh by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 28 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (No. 37 of 1956 ). "thereafter, by Amendment Act No. 19 of 1991, sub-section (1a) to Section 6-A was inserted after sub-section (1 ). Sub-sec. (1a) reads as under :"6-A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1 ). . . . . (la) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), every member of the sixth Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly, who could not serve as a member for a period of five years due to dissolution of the Legislative Assembly before the completion of its full term, shall be deemed to have complet
