Himachal HC Orders Pension Release for Ex-MLAs, Calls Withholding Unconstitutional

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has directed the state assembly secretary to release pension and arrears to two former MLAs within one month. The court's order came on petitions filed by the ex-legislators, with their counsel arguing that withholding pension based on disqualification violates the Constitution's Tenth Schedule. The assembly secretariat informed the court that a new amendment bill, which withholds pension for disqualified MLAs prospectively, is pending the Governor's assent. The court clarified this new provision does not apply to the petitioners and mandated timely future payments.

Key Points: HC Orders Pension for Ex-MLAs, Deems Withholding Illegal

  • Court orders pension release within one month
  • Withholding pension deemed unconstitutional
  • Tenth Schedule limits Speaker's power
  • New disqualification rule is prospective only
3 min read

Himachal High Court orders pension release to former MLAs; withholding benefits unconstitutional, says Senior Advocate

Himachal Pradesh High Court directs release of pension to former MLAs, calling its withholding unconstitutional. Lawyers cite Tenth Schedule mandate.

"To curtail or withhold MLA pension on grounds of disqualification is completely unconstitutional - Vikrant Thakur"

Shimla, April 10

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has directed the Secretary of the Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha to release due pension and arrears to former legislators within one month, warning that any delay will attract interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

The order came from a Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma while disposing of two writ petitions filed by former MLAs Rajinder Rana and Ravi Thakur seeking release of their pensionary benefits.

Reacting to the development, a senior advocate of the Himachal Pradesh High Court and counsel Vikrant Thakur in the matter termed the withholding of pension as 'completely unconstitutional,' asserting that the state cannot go beyond the mandate of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.

Speaking to ANI in Shimla on Friday, Vikrant Thakur, counsel in the matter, said, "The Tenth Schedule is very clear. The Speaker does not have the power to expand its mandate. To curtail or withhold MLA pension on grounds of disqualification is completely unconstitutional and against the Constitution of India."

He further emphasised that any amendment related to pension would have no legal validity unless it receives assent from the Governor or the President and is notified in the official gazette. "Unless an amendment is assented to and published, it has no legal sanctity. The attempt to impose stricter provisions, including stopping pensions, is legally untenable," he added.

During the court proceedings, it was brought on record by the Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha Secretariat that the earlier amendment to the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly (Allowances and Pension of Members) Amendment Bill, 2024, had been withdrawn by the state government.

The Secretariat informed the court that a new amendment bill has been passed, providing that MLAs elected from the 14th Legislative Assembly onwards would not be entitled to pension if disqualified under the Tenth Schedule. However, it clarified that the provision is prospective in nature and does not apply to the petitioners, who were elected during the 12th and 13th Assemblies. The new bill is also pending the assent of the Governor.

Taking note of these submissions, the High Court directed that admissible pension, along with arrears, be released to the petitioners within one month.

Quoting the order, the bench stated, "The Secretary, H.P. Vidhan Sabha is directed to release the arrears of due and admissible pension to the petitioner within one month... failing which, interest at 6% per annum shall be payable from the date of accrual till final payment."

The senior advocate welcomed the ruling, stating that it reinforces constitutional safeguards. "The High Court has upheld the rule of law by ensuring that pension is paid within a fixed timeline, with consequences for non-compliance," he said.

The court also clarified that future pension payments must be released in a timely manner.

- ANI

Share this article:

Reader Comments

P
Priya S
While I understand the legal point, it feels wrong. If an MLA defects and is disqualified, why should they get a lifelong pension from the public exchequer? The law needs to change prospectively. Taxpayers' money shouldn't reward betrayal. 🤔
V
Vikram M
The court's order is technically correct. You can't apply a new law retrospectively. The government's attempt was clearly a political move that backfired. Procedure and due process matter, even for politicians we may not like.
S
Sarah B
Interesting case. Highlights the tension between wanting to punish political defectors and adhering to legal frameworks. The 6% interest order is a good touch—ensures compliance. Hope other states take note.
A
Aman W
Bas, ab pension mil jayegi. But the real issue is the "Aya Ram, Gaya Ram" culture. The new amendment for future MLAs is a step in the right direction. At least now there will be some consequence for switching sides after election.
K
Karthik V
Respectfully, I think the court missed an opportunity to comment on the morality of it. Legal validity is one thing, but what about ethical responsibility? A disqualified MLA has failed the public trust. The pension system itself for ex-MLAs needs a complete rethink.

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50