Lok Prahari Thru Gen. Secy. S.N. Shukla vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Sansadiya Karya Vibhag And Ors.

A.F.R .
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 14796 of 2019
Lok Prahari Thru Gen. Secy. S.N. Shukla …..Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy.
Sansadiya Karya Vibhag and Ors. …..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : R.D. Shukla In Person,
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Abhinav N Trivedi
Reserved on 17.02.2026
Delivered on 13.05.2026
Court No. - 1
HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J.
(Per: Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, J.)
1. Heard Shri S.N. Shukla, petitioner in person, and Shri Abhinav N.
Trivedi, learned Counsel for the respondent, as well as learned Standing
Counsel for the State and perused the materials available on record.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought for
the following reliefs:
“1. declare, at least prospectively that the provisions of Sections 4,5,9,13(3),
13(4), 15(2), 17-A, and Chapter VIII of The Uttar Pradesh State legislature
(Members' Emoluments and Pension) Act, 1980 providing for certain
'allowances' and other facilities to members and their families/companions
and pension to former members and their spouses, medical facilities to ex-
members and their families as well as travel facilities to ex-members and
their family members' and companions are ultra vires the constitution,
2. issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus to the opposite
parties 1 to 3 to stop forthwith payment of pension/family pension to ex-
MLAs/MLCs and their spouses, and provision of other facilities mentioned in
1 above.

2
WPIL No. - 14796 of 2019
3. order recovery of expenditure on illegal pension/ family pension and other
impugned provisions during the pendency of this writ petition from the
recipients thereof.
4. Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus to the opposite
parties to setup an independent permanent Mechanism to make
recommendations regarding revision of salary and allowances to be given to
the members,
5. pass any other suitable order to meet the ends of justice in the facts and
circumstances of the case, and
6 . allow this Writ Petition with cost to the petitioner organisation. ”
A. INTRODUCTION
3. The present writ petition, instituted in the nature of a public
interest litigation (PIL) by Lok Prahri, a Society registered under the
Societies Registration Act, 1860 seeks to lay a challenge to the
Constitutional validity of Sections 4, 5, 9, 13(3), 13(4), 15(2), 17-A, and
Chapter VIII of The Uttar Pradesh State Legislature (Members'
Emoluments and Pension) Act, 1980 ( U.P. Act No. 23 of 1980 ).
Apparently, these provisions, as amended from time to time, confer upon
sitting Members as well as ex-members of a Legislative Assembly
and/or a Legislative Council (MLAs/MLCs) a wide range of ‘Salary,
Allowances’ and ‘other facilities’, and further extend pension, family
pension, free travel, medical facilities and other amenities to non-
members i.e. , their spouse, family members and companion.
4. Essentially, the fulcrum of the challenge of the petitioner rests on
the competency of the State Legislature to legislate and/or provide for
pension and grant of various facilities to its members/former members
under the provisions of the Act of 1980. According to the petitioner, the
said legislation is in the teeth of Article 195 of the Constitution of India
( corresponding to Entry 38 of List II of the Seventh Schedule ), as the
same relates only to Salaries and Allowances of Members of a State
Legislature and the word “pension” is conspicuously missing from the
said enabling provision of the Constitution of India.

3
WPIL No. - 14796 of 2019
B. CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONER
5. It has been submitted by Shri S.N. Shukla, petitioner-in-person
that Article 195 of the Constitution of India ( corresponding to Entry 38
of List II of the Seventh Schedule ) empowers the State Legislature to
make laws only for payment of ‘Salaries and Allowances’ to “ Members”
of the State Legislature. According to him, the word “ Member ” is clearly
to be understood to mean a ‘ sitting member’ . Thus, the petitioner has
submitted that in tandem with the said understanding the original Act
legislated by the Respondent-State being The Uttar Pradesh Legislative
Chambers (Members’ Emoluments) Act, 1952 faithfully followed this
mandate and as such at the time of commencement, it provided only a
modest salary of 200 per month and two limited allowances (travelling

allowance and daily allowance) that too only when the member had to
attend to his duties and functions as a legislator. Further, there was no
provision for pension, rent-free house, medical reimbursement,
constituency allowance, secretarial allowance, free travel for family or
companion, or any benefit whatsoever to existing members or ex-
members or their families.
6. However, the point being tried to be made in the present petition is
that the original 1952 Act was replaced in the year 1980 by a new
consolidating Act, being the Uttar Pradesh State Legislature
(Members' Emoluments and Pension) Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred
to as “ Act of 1980 ”). The said Act of 1980 consistently underwent
repeated amendments and successive governments kept enhancing these
facilities and showering doles of benefits on their own members/ ex-
members, without any thrift or respite. According to Shri S.N. Shukla,
petitioner-in-person, new benefits were added one after another i.e. , free
bus passes, railway coupons for self and family/companion, rent-free
furnished accommodation, constituency allowance, medical allowance,
secretarial allowance, house-building and vehicle advances, daily
allowance even for “Jan Sewa” tours, and finally pension (introduced in
the year 1976). He has submitted that till the year 2016, just before the

4
WPIL No. - 14796 of 2019
filing of the present writ petition, the extent of benefits extended to
members/ ex-members under different heads could be captured as
follows ( w.e.f. 16.09.2016 ) :-
“For sitting MLAs/MLCs
Salary : 25,000 per month
₹25,000 per month
Constituency allowance : 50,000 per month
₹25,000 per month
Medical allowance : 30,000 per month
₹25,000 per month
Secretarial allowance : 20,000 per month ₹25,000 per month
Daily allowance during session/committee days : 2,000 ₹25,000 per month
per day
Daily allowance on non-session “public service” tours :
₹25,000 per month 1,500 per day
Railway coupons worth up to 4.25 lakh per year usable by ₹25,000 per month
self + family members + companion in any class, any time,
anywhere in India
Unlimited AC Deluxe bus travel inside Uttar Pradesh with
one companion
Rent-free furnished government accommodation in Lucknow
Telephone bills up to 6,000 per month (two landlines + one ₹25,000 per month
mobile)
House-building and vehicle advances up to 2 lakh each ₹25,000 per month
Free indoor medical treatment in any government hospital
including a special revolving fund facility at S.G.P.G.I.,
Lucknow.
For ex-MLAs/MLCs and their families (Chapter VIII)
Pension of 25,000 per month (equal to the salary of a ₹25,000 per month
sitting member)
Family pension to the spouse
Same kind of railway travel coupons and bus travel facility
for ex-member + family + companion
Medical facilities for ex-member and family members. ”
7. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has placed on record a
comparative table which remarkably shows how the benefits have grown
from a modest 200 salary plus limited allowances in 1952 to more than


1,25,000 per month in cash alone, (excluding the value of free travel,
house, medical, telephone, advances, etc.). According to the petitioner,
what began as modest reimbursement for actual work, now has been
converted into a lifetime office of profit and perks for the member, his
family and even a companion. Originally, pension required a minimum
of five years’ service but in the year 2004 even this requirement was

5
WPIL No. - 14796 of 2019
removed with retrospective effect, so that even a member who served for
a few months or days became entitled to lifelong pension and all the
other post-tenure benefits.
8. The core grievance of the writ petitioner is that all these
provisions travel far beyond the limited power conferred by Article 195
of the Constitution of India, which speaks only of “salary and
allowances” to “Members” and makes no mention of pension, post-
retirement benefits, facilities to family/companion or “other facilities”.
According to the petitioner, the State Legislature has, in effect, made
itself the judge in its own cause and has showered benefits upon itself
and its former members in a manner that is manifestly arbitrary,
discriminatory and contrary to the basic constitutional idea that a public
office is meant for public service and not for personal gain.
9. The writ petition also highlights that even Local body
representatives ( i.e. Nagar Nigam, Zila Parishad, Village Panchayat, etc.)
get no such pension or lifelong facilities, not to mention of other
Constitutional functionaries like Judges, Comptroller and Auditor
General of India (C.A.G.), Election Commissioners and senior civil
servants, who do not enjoy free travel or medical benefits for
spouse/companion. The petitioner has further submitted that, even while
in service, the State has itself abolished old pension schemes for its
regular employees and it was ironical that it was showering with benefits
on their own members/ex-members, who supposedly ought to be ‘jan
sevaks’. It has been vehemently submitted that this ever-increasing
burden on the public exchequer is unjustified and amounts to “loot of
public money”.
10. During the course of hearing, the writ petitioner appearing in
person has invoked the debates made during framing of the Constitution
and submitted that the framers of the Constitution did not ever envisage
a lifelong “office of profit”. Speeches in the Constituent Assembly (e.g.,
Shri Biswanath Das on 20-5-1949) emphasized that ‘ members should
serve with allowances without pay, reflecting the spirit of public service
rather than personal gain ’. Even the chairman of the Drafting

6
WPIL No. - 14796 of 2019
Committee, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar warned about the same in the context of
Representation of the People Act, 1951 stating that “ there can be no use
in a Parliament if we adopt a system, which permits the Government to
‘corrupt the whole of Parliament’ either by offering Political offices or
by offering some other advantages. ” According to the petitioner, the
impugned provisions converted the position of MLA/MLC into a
lifelong boon, contrary to the Constitutional scheme and democratic
ethos.
11. The petitioner concluded his argument by submitting that the
impugned provisions constitute ‘colourable exercise’ of legislative
power which is ultra-vires to the Constitutional mandates as the
Legislature cannot be permitted to do anything indirectly what it cannot
do directly under Article 195 of the Constitution of India, as has been
authoritatively held by the Constitutional bench in the case of Golak
Nath v. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1967 SC 1643. The contention
that law cannot be questioned on implied prohibition unless express
provision is contravened, is incorrect. It has been tried to bring home the
analogy that the grant of pension to Ex-MLAs/MLCs does not qualify as
“pension” in its true legal sense, as it fails every test applicable to
government employees-employer sanctioned, part of service conditions,
full-time devotion during prime years, and qualifying service. According
to the petitioner, it is a gratuitous payment self-awarded by legislators.
12. The petitioner has also tried to instill logical reasoning to his
submission by stating that traditionally pension meant to be a periodical
payment in consideration of past services rendered under service
conditions. However, since legislators do not fulfill these criteria and do
not devote full prime years in service, they ought not to be granted any
pensionary benefits. According to him, the impugned provisions are
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution being arbitrary, irrational and
discriminatory. The writ petitioner appearing in person in order to
buttress his arguments advanced during the proceedings has strenuously
relied on a plethora of cases being :-

7
WPIL No. - 14796 of 2019
U.P. State Agro Industrial Corpn. Ltd. v. Kisan Upbhokta *
Parishad, (2007) 13 SCC 246;
S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India, (1967) 65 ITR 34;*
Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, (1994) 2 SCC 594;*
Union of India v. Dinesh Engineering Corpn., (2001) 8 SCC 491;*
State of U.P. v. Johri Mal, (2004) 4 SCC 714;*
Onkar Lal Bajaj v. Union of India, (2003) 2 SCC 673;*
Subramanian Swamy v. CBI, (2014) 8 SCC 682;*
Lok Prahari v. State of U.P., (2018) 6 SCC 1;*
Abhay Singh v. State of U.P., (2013) 15 SCC 435;*
Alagaapuram R. Mohanraj v. T.N. Legislative Assembly, (2016) 6 *
SCC 82;
Vineet Narain v. Union of India, (1998) 1 SCC 226;*
Prakash Nath Khanna v. CIT, (2004) 9 SCC 686;*
Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board v. Indraprastha *
Gas Ltd., (2015) 9 SCC 209;
Sakshi v. Union of India, (2004) 5 SCC 518;*
Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT, (1985) 4 SCC 590;*
Tandon Bros. v. State of W.B., (2001) 5 SCC 664;*
State of Kerala v. Mar Appraem Kuri Co. Ltd., (2012) 7 SCC 106;*
DTC v. Mazdoor Congress, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 600;*
Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1;*
Petron Engineering Construction (P) Ltd. v. Central Board of *
Direct Taxes, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 7;
CBI v. Keshub Mahindra, (2011) 6 SCC 216;*
MCD v. Gurnam Kaur, (1989) 1 SCC 101;*
Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, 1966 SCC *
OnLine SC 10;
B.R. Kapur v. State of T.N., (2001) 7 SCC 231;*
Union of India v. V. Sriharan, (2016) 7 SCC 1;*
Raja Ram Pal v. Lok Sabha, (2007) 3 SCC 184;*
Alagaapuram R. Mohanraj v. T.N. Legislative Assembly, (2016) 6 *
SCC 82;
N.D.P. Namboodripad v. Union of India, (2007) 4 SCC 502;*
State of Haryana v. AGM Management Services Ltd., (2006) 5 *
SCC 520;
Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd. v. Janapada Sabha, 1962 SCC *
OnLine SC 72;
Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India, (2006) 7 SCC 1;*
Roxann Sharma v. Arun Sharma, (2015) 8 SCC 318;*
Avishek Goenka v. Union of India, (2012) 5 SCC 321;*
State of A.P. v. P. Laxmi Devi, (2008) 4 SCC 720;*

8
WPIL No. - 14796 of 2019
Indian Council For Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) *
3 SCC 212;
D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, (1987) 1 SCC 378;*
Delhi Financial Corpn. v. Rajiv Anand, (2004) 11 SCC 625;*
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, 1950 SCC 228;*
M.T. Khan v. Govt. of A.P., (2004) 2 SCC 267;*
S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India, (1967) 65 ITR 34.*
C. CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENT
13. Per contra , at the very outset, learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of the Respondent-State has submitted that the present writ
petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The petitioner-
organization lacks the requisite locus standi to challenge the
Constitutional validity of the provisions relating to emoluments,
allowances, and pension of Members and Ex-Members of the
Legislature. As is evident from the record, similar issues have already
been raised by the petitioner and adjudicated upon up to the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and the same have been decided against the petitioner.
Therefore, the present petition, raising materially identical issues, is
barred by principles analogous to res judicata and constitutes an abuse
of the process of law.
14. It has been vehemently submitted that the instant writ petition has
not been filed bona fide in public interest. Rather, it seeks to reopen
settled issues, thereby wasting valuable judicial time. Mere recognition
of locus in earlier public interest matters does not confer an unfettered
right upon the petitioner to agitate every issue repeatedly. The conduct of
the petitioner clearly indicates lack of bona fides . It has been further
argued that the impugned provisions of the Uttar Pradesh State
Legislature (Members’ Emoluments and Pension) Act, 1980 fall squarely
within the legislative competence of the State Legislature. Article 195 of
the Constitution of India, read with Entry 38 of List II (Seventh
Schedule), confers wide powers upon the State Legislature to determine
salaries, allowances, and pensions of its Members, including former
Members. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lok Prahari vs. Union of
India reported in (2018) 16 SCC 696 ; has affirmed the validity of such

9
WPIL No. - 14796 of 2019
legislative provisions in an identical clause meant for Members of
Parliament.
15. Furthermore, it has been strenuously argued that the contention of
the petitioner that benefits cannot be extended to Ex-members is
misconceived. The term “Member” as used in Article 195 of the
Constitution of India and under the Act of 1980 is not restricted to
‘sitting members’ alone. The Legislature, in its legislative wisdom, has
validly and rightfully extended certain benefits to former members
considering the nature of their duties and continued public engagement.
It has also been submitted that the allowances and facilities provided,
including travel and medical benefits, are not arbitrary but are
intrinsically connected with the discharge of legislative functions.
Members of the Legislature are required to maintain extensive public
and social interaction, and such provisions facilitate effective
performance of their duties. The Legislature, being the best judge of its
requirements, has rightly provided for these facilities. The grant of
pension, family pension, and allied benefits to ex-members is a welfare
measure enacted within the domain of legislative policy. Such provisions
cannot be termed illegal or unconstitutional merely because similar
benefits are not extended to other Constitutional authorities. The
Legislature is empowered to make classifications based on intelligible
differentia and functional requirements.
16. It has been further submitted that the challenge based on the
ground of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is also wholly
misconceived. The principle of equality applies among equals, and
Members of Legislature constitute a distinct class owing to the nature of
their Constitutional functions. The petitioner’s attempt to equate
legislators with government servants is fundamentally flawed. The
impugned provisions are neither arbitrary nor discriminatory and thus,
do not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is a settled
principle of Constitutional law that Courts do not sit in judgment over
the wisdom of legislative policy. The determination of quantum of
salary, allowances, and pension lies exclusively within the legislative

10
WPIL No. - 14796 of 2019
domain. The Judiciary cannot assume the role of a “second legislature”
to re-evaluate such policy decisions unless there is a clear Constitutional
violation, which is absent in the present case.
17. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has lastly
submitted that the issues in hand raised in the present petition are no
longer res integra . The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Common Cause vs.
Union of India (2002) and Lok Prahari vs. Union of India (2018), as
well as this Hon’ble Court in earlier proceedings involving the same
petitioner, have upheld the legislative competence and validity of such
provisions. The petitioner has misinterpreted these judgments to advance
untenable claims. The present writ petition does not raise any new
question of Constitutional or public importance. The issues are repetitive
and already adjudicated. Therefore, no interference by this Hon’ble
Court is warranted in the present writ petition. Thus, it has been
submitted that the Uttar Pradesh State Legislature (Members’
Emoluments and Pension) Act, 1980 is a valid piece of legislation
enacted within the Constitutional limits. The provisions relating to
salary, allowances, pension, and other benefits are reasonable, non-
discriminatory, and enacted keeping in view the nature of legislative
responsibilities.
D. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
18. Having heard the petitioner appearing in person, as well as the
learned State Counsel, and upon perusal of the pleadings, statutory
provisions, and precedents relied upon, this Court proceeds to examine
the Constitutional validity of the impugned provisions of the Uttar
Pradesh State Legislature (Members’ Emoluments and Pension) Act,
1980.
19. This Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, is primarily concerned with examining the
Constitutional validity of the impugned enactment and not the
desirability or wisdom of the policy underlying it. The distinction
between illegality and policy disagreement must be scrupulously
maintained. Unless the petitioner is able to demonstrate that the

11
WPIL No. - 14796 of 2019
impugned provisions suffer from manifest arbitrariness, lack of
legislative competence, or violation of Constitutional guarantees,
interference is unwarranted. This Court is also mindful of the principle
that economic and fiscal legislation is accorded greater latitude and the
threshold for judicial interference is significantly high in these kind of
cases. In the present public interest litigation, the core challenge pertains
to the grant of salary, allowances, pension and ancillary benefits to
sitting as well as former Members of the Legislature.
20. The basic postulate of the petitioner is founded on the legislative
intent of Article 195 of the Constitution of India which provides 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. ”
21. Apparently, the aforesaid Article provides for entitlement of
salaries and allowances of Members of Legislative Assembly and
Legislative Council of a State. However, it is Entry 38 of List II (State
List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, which is
reproduced hereunder, which provides for law making powers to any
state by virtue of Article 246(3) of the Constitution of India:
“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. ”

12
WPIL No. - 14796 of 2019
22. This Court finds that the State of Uttar Pradesh by virtue of the
aforesaid powers vested on it under Article 195 of the Constitution of
India read along with Entry No. 38 of List-II (State list) has enacted the
Uttar Pradesh Legislative Chambers (Members’ Emoluments) Act, 1952,
which was succeeded by a new consolidating Act, being the Uttar
Pradesh State Legislature (Members' Emoluments and Pension) Act,
1980. Further, the word “allowances” has not been defined in our
Constitution of India nor the Act of 1980. In Black's Law Dictionary ,
Ninth Edition, the word “ allowance ” has been defined as under:-
“Allowance- A share or portion, esp. of money that is
assigned or granted.”
23. In the Law Lexicon by P Ramanatha Aiyar 2nd Edition, the word
“ allowance ” has been defined as under:-
“Allowance- Something given as a compensation,
abatement, or deduction; a portion or a gift or
gratuity to a child or other dependent; the sanction
or approbation of the Court to certain acts;
settlement; to put upon allowance; to restrain or
limit to a certain quantity of provision or drink. Used
in such terms (as) allowance of a specified amount as
alimony Pendente lite; special allowance for costs in
taxation; allowance for the maintenance of one's wife
and children; allowance to insolvent debtors etc.”
Although, the Act of 1980 does not define “allowances” however, the
said word is pre-fixed with several words in the Act like we have the
Constituency allowances (Section 4), Daily allowance (Section 15),
Secretarial allowance (Section 15A), Accommodation allowances
(Section 16(2)) etc. Thus, given the prima facie meaning of the word
allowances, we find that the Act of 1980 has been enacted by the State
Legislature within its legislative competence as provided under Article
195 of the Constitution of India to provide various kinds of allowances.
However, the petitioner has sought to challenge certain provisions of the
Act of 1980, which according to them is beyond the legislative

13
WPIL No. - 14796 of 2019
competence of the State Legislature, as it could not have granted this
allowances as per Section 4 (Constituency allowances), Section 5
(Railway coupons), Section 9 (Rail Journey allowances), Section 13
(Journey by bus allowances), Section 15 (Daily Allowances), Section
17A (Provision of loan to members) and most importantly the extended
pensionary benefits to itself for two reasons, firstly, because Entry 38 of
List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule does not contemplate any
pensionary benefits and secondly, because of the absence of such express
Constitutional recognition.
24. Although, the two reasons apparently sounds to be one and the
same as express recognition takes within its stride any contemplation, for
without contemplation there cannot be any express Constitutional
recognition.
25. However, before this Court proceeds any further, it would be in
the best of things that at least, the impugned provisions, which has been
sought to be challenged and form a part of the Act of 1980 be curled in
for ready reference :-
““4 . Constituency allowance . —Every member of the Assembly or
council, whether or not he holds any of the offices referred to in
clause (i) of Section 2, shall be entitled to receive, for the duration
1
of his membership a constituency allowance of [seventy-five
thousand rupees] per month:
2
[Provided that the aforesaid member shall be entitled to only
seventy per cent of the above mentioned constituency allowance
from the month of April, 2020 to March, 2021.]
[]*
1 Subs. for “fifty thousand rupees” by U.P. Act 13 of 2025, S. 3 (w.r.e.f. 1-4-2025).
Earlier, substituted. for “thirty thousand rupees” by U.P. Act 21 of 2016, S. 3 (w.e.f. 14-09-2016).
2 Ins. by U.P. Act 14 of 2020, S. 3 (w.r.e.f. 1-4-2020).

14
WPIL No. - 14796 of 2019
3 4
[5. Railway coupons .— [(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act,
every member of the Assembly or the Council, whether or not he
holds any office referred to in clause (i) of Section 2, shall be
provided, in the manner prescribed with railway coupons of such
5
value not exceeding [five lakh rupees] per annum from June 1,
2015 as may be used by such member for himself and for
6
the [members of his family or his companion] for travel by any
railway in any class at any time within or outside Uttar Pradesh
in accordance with such principles as maybe prescribed.]
7
[(2) subject to the other provisions of this Act, every ex-member
shall be provided, in the manner prescribed, with railway coupons
8
of such value not exceeding [one lakh fifty thousand rupees] per
annum as may be used by such ex member for himself and for the
members of his family and the provisions of sub-section (1)
shall mutatis mutandis apply to the railway coupons supplied
under this sub-section.]
Explanation—value of railway coupons for journeys by railway
referred to in this section shall from time to time be determined by
the State Government in consultation with the Railway Board:]
9
[Provided that out of the railway coupons to be supplied under
this section to a member, he shall at his option,—
3 Subs. by U.P. Act 13 of 1986, S. 4 (w.r.e.f. 1-4-1986). Prior to substitution it read as:- “ 5. Journey
by rail within Uttar Pradesh .—Every member shall be provided, in the maimer prescribed, with
railway coupons of such value as may entitle him to travel in first class within Uttar Pradesh at any
time and by any railway.”
4 Subs. by U.P. Act 3 of 2015, S. 4(a) (w.e.f. 1-4-2015). Prior to substitution it read as:- “(1) Subject
to the provisions of this Act, every member of the Assembly or the Council, whether or not he holds
any office referred to in clause (i) of Section 2, shall be provided, in the manner prescribed, with
railway coupons of such value, not exceeding forty-five thousand rupees per annum for the period
from June 1, 1990 to August 15, 1991, not exceeding fifty-four thousand rupees per annum for the
period from August 16, 1991 to May 1, 1994, not exceeding sixty-five thousand rupees per annum for
the period from May 2, 1994 to May 31, 1997 and not exceeding eighty-five thousand rupees per
annum from June 1, 1997 and not exceeding eighty-eight thousand rupees per annum from June 1,
1998 and not exceeding one lakh twenty thousand rupees per annum from April 1, 2004 and not
exceeding one lakh fifty thousand rupees per annum from June 1, 2005, as may be used by such
member for himself and for the members of his family for travel by any railway in any class at any
time within or outside Uttar Pradesh in accordance with such principles as may be prescribed:”.
5 Subs. for “ four lakh twenty-five thousand rupees ” by U.P. Act 13 of 2025, S. 4(a) (w.r.e.f. 1-4-
2025). Earlier, substituted. for “ three lakh twenty five thousand rupees ” by U.P. Act 21 of 2016, S.
4(a)(i) (w.e.f. 14-09-2016).
6 Subs. for “ members of his family ” by U.P. Act 21 of 2016, S. 4(a)(ii) (w.e.f. 14-09-2016).
7 Ins. by U.P. Act 30 of 1998, S. 4(b) (w.e.f. 25-9-1998).
8 Subs. for “ one lakh rupees ” by U.P. Act 13 of 2025, S. 4(b)(i) (w.r.e.f. 1-4-2025).
Earlier, substituted. for “ eighty thousand rupees ” by U.P. Act 21 of 2016, S. 4(b)(i) (w.e.f. 14-09-
2016).
9 Subs. by U.P. Act 27 of 2000, S. 2 (w.e.f. 1-6-2000). Prior to substitution it read as:- “Provided
that out of the railway coupons to be supplied under this section to a member, he shall at his option,
be supplied, instead of such value of railway coupons as he may desire, coupons of equal value for
travel by air at any time within or outside Uttar Pradesh in accordance with such principles as may
be prescribed.”.

15
WPIL No. - 14796 of 2019
10
(a) be supplied [coupons of equal value or reimburse the fare]
for travel by air at any time within or outside Uttar Pradesh;
and
11
(b) be paid an amount in cash not exceeding [the amount opted
by him] per month for petrol or diesel for his own vehicle;
instead of such value of railway coupons as he may desire, in such
manner as may be prescribed.]
12
[Provided further that whenever there is an increase in the
13
railway fare of [air-conditioned two-tier], the Slate Government
may by a notified order make a proportional increase in the value
of railway coupons.]
14
[Provided also that out of the railway coupons to be supplied
under sub-section (2) to an ex-member, he shall at his option be
supplied coupons of equal value for travel by air at any time.]
15
[Provided also that an ex-member shall be paid out of the
Railway coupons to be supplied to him an amount in cash not
16
exceeding [one lakh rupees] annually for petrol or diesel for his
own vehicle.]
17
[9. Journey by Minister, Speaker etc .—The railway coupons
referred to in Section 5, may, prescribed, be used by every
member who holds any office mentioned in clause (i) of Section 2,
for himself and members of his family for travel in any railway in
any class at any time within or outside Uttar Pradesh for
purposes otherwise than in discharge of official duties.]
18
[13. Journey Bus.- []*
10 Subs. for “coupons of equal value” by U.P. Act 3 of 2015, S. 4(c)(i) (w.e.f. 1-4-2015).
11 Subs. for “ twenty-five thousand rupees ” by U.P. Act 13 of 2025, S. 4(b)(ii) (w.r.e.f. 1-4-2025).
Earlier, substituted for “eighteen thousand rupees” by U.P. Act 21 of 2016, S. 4(c) (w.e.f. 14-09-
2016).
12 Ins. by U.P. Act 4 of 1997, S. 3(b) (w.e.f. 1-5-1997).
13 Subs. for “first class” by U.P. Act 25 of 2000, S. 3 (w.e.f. 22-5-2000).
14 Ins. by U.P. Act 7 of 2006, S. 2(b) (w.e.f. 14-03-2006).
15 Ins. by U.P. Act 21 of 2016, S. 4(b)(ii) (w.e.f. 14-09-2016).

16 Subs. for “ fifty thousand rupees ” by U.P. Act 13 of 2025, S. 4(c) (w.r.e.f. 1-4-2025).

17 Subs. by U.P. Act 13 of 1986, S. 9 (w.r.e.f. 1-4-1986). Prior to substitution it read as:- ““ 9.
Journey by Minister, Speaker etc .—Every member who holds any of the offices mentioned in clause
(i) of Section 2 shall be provided with railway coupons:— (a) referred to in Section 5, which he shall
be entitled to use, in the manner prescribed, for travelling in First Class within Uttar Pradesh for
purposes other than public business; (b) referred to in clause (b) of Section 6, which he shall be
entitled to use, in the manner prescribed, for taking along with himself the members of his family in
connection with journeys performed in First Class, within or outside Uttar Pradesh for purposes
other than public business, so however, that the cost of such journeys in aggregate (including the cost
of journey made by such member and the members of his family outside Uttar Pradesh does not
exceed the maximum limit determined in accordance with clause (b) of the said section.”.
18 Subs. by U.P. Act 21 of 2005, S. 5 (w.e.f. 10-08-2005). Prior to substitution it read as:- “ 13.
Journey Bus .— (1) Every member shall be provided, in the manner prescribed, with a free non-

16
WPIL No. - 14796 of 2019
13(3) Every person who is entitled to a pension under Chapter
VIII shall be entitled, in the manner prescribed with a free non-
transferable pass to travel at any time within Uttar Pradesh by the
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Bus without
payment of the passenger tax due under any law for the time
being in force.
13(4) The pass referred to in sub-section (3) may also be used by
such person for taking one companion along with him in the bus:
Provided that if a person referred to in sub-section (3) travels in
an air-condition bus or a deluxe bus he shall have to bear himself
the excess amount of fare difference.]
15. Daily Allowance.— []*
19
15[(2) Every member whether or not he holds any office referred
to in clause (i) of Section 2 and the Leader of Opposition shall be
entitled to daily allowance at the rate of two thousand rupees per
day for the days during which he tours for the works in the service
of the public and for which the allowance or incidental charges
under sub-section (1) are not, may not be admissible:]
20
[Provided that a member shall not be entitled to the daily
allowance admissible under sub-sections (1) or (2) for the period
of his confinement in a jail except the day of his discharge.]
17-A. Provision of Loan to Members .—The State Government
may provide for grant of repayable Advance to members advance
21
of a sum [not exceeding rupees two lakh] to any person who is a
member, whether or not he holds any office referred to in clause
(i) of Section 2, or who has held office as a member of the
Assembly or Council, either for construction or purchase of
residential, accommodation or for purchase of a vehicle in
accordance with such terms and conditions as may be
prescribed:]
-transferable pass entitling him to travel, at any time within Uttar Pradesh, by the Uttar Pradesh
State Road Transport Corporation Bus, in the highest class, if any, without payment of the passenger
tax due under any law for the time being in force. (2) The pass referred to in sub-section (1) may also
be used by a member for taking one companion along with him in the Bus. (3) Every pass issued to a
member under this section shall be valid for the duration of his membership and on the expiration of
the term of such membership, it shall be Surrendered to the Principal Secretary. (4) Every person who
is entitled to a pension under Chapter VIII shall also be entitled to a free non-transferable bus-pass
and the provisions of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to every such
person as they apply to a member.”
19 Subs. by U.P. Act 13 of 2025, S. 6(c) (w.r.e.f. 1-4-2025). Earlier, inserted by U.P. Act 16 of 1994,

S. 3(b) (w.e.f. 30-4-1994). Prior to substitution it read as:- “ (2) Every member shall be entitled to
daily allowance at the rate of one thousand five hundred rupees per day for the days during which he
tours for the works in the service of the public and for which the allowance or incidental charges
under sub-section (1) are not, or may not be, admissible.”.
20 Ins. by U.P. Act 13 of 2025, S. 6(d) (w.r.e.f. 1-4-2025).
21 Subs. for “ not exceeding rupees one lakh ” by U.P. Act 4 of 1997, S. 6 (w.e.f. 1-5-1997).

17
WPIL No. - 14796 of 2019
22
[Provided that if the advance granted to any such member for
one purpose and the interest due thereon has been repaid, the
member may be granted advance for the other purpose.]
HAPTER
C VIII
PENSION TO EX-MEMBERS
23. Meaning of certain expressions .—For the purposes of this
Chapter—
23
[(a) the expression ‘Assembly’ or ‘Council’ shall include the
United Provinces Legislative Assembly or the United
Provinces Legislative Council respectively:—
(i) which was constituted and functioned as such under the
Government of India Act, 1935, either before or after the
commencement of the Indian Independence Act, 1947; or
(ii) which functioned as a House of the provisional Legislature
for the State under the Constitution of India.]
(b) the expression ‘year’ means any period of twelve calendar
months;
(c) the period-during which a person has, by virtue of his
membership in the Assembly or Council, held any of the offices
mentioned in clause (i) of Section 2 shall also be taken into
account for determining the term of such member
[]*
22 Ins. by U.P. Act 25 of 2000, S. 4 (w.e.f. 22-5-2000).
23 Subs. by U.P. Act 13 of 1984, S. 5 deemed always to have been substituted. Prior to substitution
it read as:- “(a) the expression ‘Assembly’ or ‘Council’ shall include the United Provinces
Legislative Assembly or the United Provinces Legislative Council respectively which functioned
between January 1, 1946 and the date of commencement of the Constitution of India, and
thereafter, as a House of the Provisional Legislature for the State;”.

18
WPIL No. - 14796 of 2019
24 25
4. Pension to Ex-members [2 . — [(1) Every person who has served as
a member of the Assembly or the Council for any period shall be entitled
to a pension at the rate of thirty five thousand rupees per month
throughout his life:
Provided that where any person who has served as aforesaid for a
period exceeding one term of whatever duration, he shall be entitled
to an additional pension at the rate of two thousand rupees for every
completed year in excess of one term:
Provided further that where any person who has served as aforesaid
for his first full term of six years as a member of Council, he shall be
entitled to an additional pension of two thousand rupees i.e. a total
pension of thirty seven thousand rupees per month:
Provided also that in the event of dissolution of Assembly, the period
from the date of dissolution of Assembly, till the date of first meeting
of the new Assembly, shall be counted for pension purposes of a
member who has been the speaker of the dissolved Assembly and has
continued to be in office as such during the said period.
Explanation—Where a person has served as a member of the
Assembly or the Council for a term of six months and above and has
not completed one year then such person shall for the purposes of
24 Subs. by U.P. Act 4 of 1997, S. 7 (w.e.f. 1-5-1997). Prior to substitution it read as:- “ 24. Pension
to Ex-members .— (1) Every person who has served for a period of five years (whether continuous
or not), as a member of the Assembly or of the Council, or partly as a member of the Assembly
and partly as a member of the Council shall be entitled to a pension at the rate of seven hundred
and fifty rupees per month throughout his life: Provided that where any person has served as
aforesaid for a period exceeding five years, he shall be entitled to an additional pension at the
rate of one hundred rupees per month for every completed year in excess of five, so however, that
the maximum amount of pension payable under this section shall, in no case exceed one thousand
five hundred and fifty rupees per month. (2) Every person who has, for the first time, become
entitled to a pension with effect from January 1, 1981 by virtue of— (i) the Explanation I to sub-
section (1), or (ii) his membership of the Assembly or Council as defined in clause (a) of Section
23, shall also be entitled to a pension, at the rate specified in the said sub-section (1) for the
period commencing from January 1, 1977 and ending on December 31, 1980. Explanation 1—
Where a person has served as a member of the Assembly or the Council for a term which falls
short of five years by a period not exceeding one month, then such person shall, for the purposes
of this section, be deemed to have served as a member for five years. Explanation II—Where a
person has served as a member of the Assembly, constituted in the year 1980 or in the year 1985,
for a term which falls short of five years by a period not exceeding three months, then such
person shall, for the purpose of this section, be deemed to have served as a member for five
years.”.
25 Subs. by U.P. Act 13 of 2025, S. 9 (w.r.e.f. 1-4-2025). Prior to substitution it read as:-
“ 24. Pension to Ex-members .— (1) Every person who has served as a member of the Assembly or
the Council for any period shall be entitled to a pension at the rate of twenty-five thousand rupees
per month throughout his life: Provided that where any person has served as aforesaid for period
exceeding one year, he shall be entitled to an additional pension at die rate of two thousand
rupees per month for every completed year in excess of one year:] Provided further that in the
event of dissolution of Assembly, the period from the date of dissolution of Assembly, till the date
of first meeting of the new Assembly, shall be counted for pension purposes of a member who has
been the speaker of the dissolved Assembly and has continued to be in office as such during the
said period. (2) Where any person entitled to pension under sub-section (1) is also entitled to any
other pension such person shall be entitled to receive the pension under sub-section (1) in
addition to such pension. Explanation—Where a person have served as a member of the
Assembly or the Council for a term of six months and above and have not completed one year
then such person shall for the purposes of calculating the pension, be deemed to have served as a
member for one year.”.

19
WPIL No. - 14796 of 2019
calculating the pension, be deemed to have served as member for one
year.
(2) Where any person entitled to pension under sub-section (1) is also
entitled to any other pension, such person shall be entitled to receive
the pension under sub-section (1) in addition to such pension.
(3) The pension and additional pension to every person shall be
increased after every five years commencing from 1st April, 2025 on
the basis of Cost Inflation Index provided under clause (v) of
Explanation to Section 48 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act 43 of
1961).]
26
4-A. Conditions of pension payable to certain persons [2 . —Where a
person becomes entitled to pension or additional pension under this
Act on the ground that he has served as a member of the Assembly or
Council, constituted or in existence before January 1, 1946 such
pension or additional pension, as the case may be, shall be deemed
to be admissible to such person with effect from January 1, 1977.]
25. Pension when not payable .—Notwithstanding anything
contained in Section 24, no person shall be entitled to any pension
under this Chapter in the following cases, namely—
27 28
[(a) [ ]]*
(b) where any person is employed on a salary under the Central
Government or any State Government or any Local Authority,
or becomes otherwise entitled to any remuneration from any
corporations owned or controlled by such Government or from
a local authority, and such salary or remuneration is equal to
29
or exceeds [the amount of pension admissible under, Section
24] per month and he continues to be so employed or entitled
to such remuneration;
30
(c) [ ]*
(d) where any person is elected to the office of the President or
Vice-President or is appointed to the office of Governor of any
State or the Administrator of any Union Territory and
continues to hold such office;
(e) where any person is elected or nominated as a member of the
Legislative Assembly or the Legislative Council of any State or
of either of the Houses of Parliament and continues to be such
a member.
26 Ins. by U.P. Act 13 of 1984, S. 7 (w.e.f. 29-4-1984).
27 Subs. by U.P. Act 4 of 1997, S. 8(a) (w.e.f. 1-5-1997). Prior to substitution it read as:- “(a) where
a person is entitled to any pension amounting to two thousand and fifty per month or more under
the provisions of the Salaries, Allowances and Pension of Members of Parliament Act, 1954;”.
28 Omitted by U.P. Act 30 of 1998, S. 10 (w.e.f. 25-9-1998).
29 Subs. for “ two thousand and fifty rupees ” by U.P. Act 4 of 1997, S. 8(b) (w.e.f. 1-5-1997).
30 Omitted by U.P. Act 30 of 1998, S. 10 (w.e.f. 25-9-1998).

20
WPIL No. - 14796 of 2019
31
[(f) where any person ceases to be a citizen of India.]
32
[(2) Where any person entitled to pension under sub-section (1) is
also entitled to any other pension such person shall be entitled to
receive the pension under sub-section (1) in addition to such
pension.]
26. Pension to be reduced in certain cases . —Where in the
33
circumstances mentioned in [clause (b)] of Section 25, a person is
entitled to a pension, salary or remuneration amounting to less
34
than [the amount of pension admissible under Section 24] per
month, then the pension payable to such person under Section 24
shall not exceed the amount by which such pension, salary or
35
remuneration falls short of [seven hundred and fifty rupees] per
month.
36 37
[26-A. Family Pension .— [(1) If a sitting member dies during
the tenure of his or her office, the spouse of such member or if such
person leaves no spouse, his minor children or unmarried
daughters shall be entitled to a family pension equal to pension
otherwise admissible to the deceased member at the time of death
or a pension of thirty thousand rupees, whichever is greater, for the
lifetime of such spouse or till the minor children attain the age of
majority and in case of daughters till they get married.]
38
[(2) If an ex-member dies, the spouse of such ex-member or if
such person leaves no spouse his minor children or unmarried
daughters shall be entitled to a family pension equal to pension of
such ex-member at the time of death or a pension of thirty thousand
rupees, whichever is greater, for the life-time of such spouse or till
31 Ins. by U.P. Act 15 of 1991, S. 2 (w.r.e.f. 7-1-1991).
32 Ins. by U.P. Act 30 of 1998, S. 9(b) (w.e.f. 25-9-1998).
33 Subs. for “clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c)” by U.P. Act 30 of 1998, S. 11 (w.e.f. 25-9-1998).
34 Subs. for “ two thousand and fifty rupees ” by U.P. Act 4 of 1997, S. 9 (w.e.f. 1-5-1997).
35 Subs. for “ five hundred rupees ” by U.P. Act 13 of 1984, S. 9 (w.e.f. 29-4-1984).
36 Subs . by U.P. Act 9 of 2010, S. 7 (w.e.f. 5-3-2010). Prior to substitution it read as:- “ 26-A.
Financial assistance to dependent of deceased members .—If a sitting member, dies during the
tenure of his or her office, a sum of Rs. 5 lacks shall be granted by the State Government to
his/her dependent as lump sum one time Financial assistance.
Explanation —“Dependent” in relation to a member means his or her spouse, son, daughter, father
or mother in order of preference, residing with and wholly dependent on such member.”.
37 Subs. by U.P. Act 13 of 2025, S. 10(a) (w.r.e.f. 1-4-2025). Prior to substitution it read as:- “(1) If
a sitting member, dies during the tenure of his or her office, the spouse of such member shall be
entitled to a family pension equal to pension otherwise admissible to the deceased member at the time
of death or a pension of rupees twenty five thousand whichever is greater, for the life-time of such
spouse.”.
38 Subs. by U.P. Act 13 of 2025, S. 10(b) (w.r.e.f. 1-4-2025). Prior to substitution it read as:- “(2) If
an ex-member 50% pension of such ex-member at the time of death or a pension of rupees twenty five
thousand whichever is greater, dies, the spouse of such ex-member shall be entitled to a family
pension equal to 50% of pension of such ex-member at the time of death for the life-time of such
spouse:”.

21
WPIL No. - 14796 of 2019
the minor children attain the age of majority and in case of
daughters till they get married:]
Provided that if the spouse is entitled to a salary under Section 3 or
a pension under sub-section (1) of Section 24 she/he will not be
entitled to receive family pension under sub-section (1) or sub-
section (2):]
39
[Provided further that where more than one person becomes
entitled for pension under sub-sections (1) or (2) all such persons
shall draw the said pension in equal shares.]
40
[(3) Sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) shall also apply to a
spouse who is alive on the date of commencement of the Uttar
Pradesh State Legislature (Members' Emoluments and Pension)
(Amendment) Act, 2015.] ””
26. Having navigated through the aforesaid provisions and the
dictionary meaning of “allowances” as well as the usage of the said word
in common parlance, one can generally say that these all provisions are
in the nature of allowances and facilities provided to the members/ ex-
members, which are very much permissible under the provisions of
Article 195 of the Constitution of India. Further, a scrutiny of these
aforesaid provisions, as well as the plethora of precedents cited herein
above, immediately brings us to fore that the petitioner organization has,
on earlier occasions, raised substantially similar challenges concerning
allowances, pension, and benefits of legislators, which have been
repelled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lok Prahari v.
Union of India , reported in (2018) 16 SCC 696 . This Court finds that
although the said matter was related to allowances and pensionary
benefits to members of Parliament, however, identical provisions like
Entry No. 38 in List -II (State list), which is engaging attention of this
Court in the present matter, came up to be considered by the Apex Court
in the case of Member of Parliament, which is found in Entry No. 73 of
39 Subs. by U.P. Act 13 of 2025, S. 10(c) (w.r.e.f. 1-4-2025).
40 Subs. by U.P. Act 3 of 2015, S. 9(c) (w.e.f. 1-4-2015). Prior to substitution it read as:- “(3) Sub-
section (2) shall apply also to a spouse who is alive on the date of commencement of the Uttar
Pradesh State Legislature (Members' Emoluments and Pension) (Amendment) Act, 2013 of such ex-
member as died before March 05, 2010. Such spouse shall be entitled for family pension with effect
from April 01, 2013.”.

22
WPIL No. - 14796 of 2019
List -I (Union list). In order to give sanctity to the said comparison,
Entry 73 of List-I is being quoted herein below:
“List-I – Union List
73. Salaries and allowances of members of the parliament, the
Chairman and Deputy chairman of the council of states and the
Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the House of the People. ”
27. On a perusal of both the provision, whether it is Entry No. 38 in
List No.-II or Entry no. 73 in List No.-I, according to this Court have
identical language and meaning, except that the former is meant for State
Legislature, whereas the later is meant for Union parliament. The
Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case of Lok Prahari (supra) , while
examining the Constitutional scheme governing pensionary benefits to
legislators and Constitutional functionaries, observed that the expression
“allowances” of Members of Parliament (MP’s) as mentioned under
Entry 73 of List-I of the Seventh Schedule in their opinion was wide
enough to cover the payment of ‘pension’ and ‘other benefits’ covered
by the impugned provisions for MP's and ex-MP.'s. 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. The Apex Court in the said judgment, while answering to an
identical contention of the petitioner as sought to be raised in the present
petition, relating to whether the various benefits created under the
impugned provisions are rational, the Court authoritatively held as
follows:
“31. We are of the view that these questions are in the orbit of the
wisdom of the Parliament in choosing/changing the legislative policy
whether the various benefits created under the impugned provisions are
rational having regard to the affluent financial status of some of the MPs
or the poverty of the millions of the population etc. These are not
justiciable issues. In this context, we may refer to the principle laid
down by this Court in Dr. P. Nalla Thampy Terah v. Union of India &
Others (1985)Supp SCC 0189 :

23
WPIL No. - 14796 of 2019
“If the provisions of the law violate the Constitution, they have
to be struck down. We cannot, however, negate a law on the
ground that we do not approve of the policy which underlies it.
Can the Court, for example, strike down Rule 90 on the ground
that the limit of rupees one lakh is too high in the Indian
context? We may have our own preferences and perceptions
but, they cannot be used for invalidating laws. ”
28. This Court is also of the considered opinion that the binding
judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Lok Prahari (supra) , though rendered in the context of Members of
Parliament, squarely addresses the principal issues raised in the present
writ petition. However, in view of the multifarious issues being raised by
the petitioner in the present matter, this Court wishes to tread further and
note that not only the Apex Court, but even the High Courts have
expressed similar view on the said issue.
29. Thus, we note with certain propensity similar judgments on these
very aspect given by at least three different High Courts i.e. the Gujarat,
Madhya Pradesh and the Rajasthan High Courts. We see that the Gujarat
High Court was faced with a situation, wherein the vires of provisions of
Gujarat Legislative Assembly Members' Pension Act, 1984 was sought
to be challenged on similar grounds of non-competent because of Article
195 of the Constitution of India. The Gujarat High Court in the case of
Narayanlal Himatlal Bhatt v. State of Gujarat, reported in 1986 SCC
OnLine Guj 41:1986 GLH 579; decided on April 4, 1986 while
examining Article 246(3) of the Constitution of India 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

24
WPIL No. - 14796 of 2019
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.”
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.
5. Mr. N.H. Bhatt also contended that the non-mention of the word
‘pension’ in Article 195 and the mention of such emoluments in
some of the Articles referred above, clearly establish that the
Constitution never intended to pay pension to the members of the
Legislative Assembly. To draw support to this contention, Mr. N.H.
Bhatt referred to Maxwell Interpretation of Statutes and stated that
every clause of the Constitution should be construed with reference
to the context and other provisions of law. He wanted of draw
support to this submission by referring to the decision in Life
Insurance Corporation of India v. Escorts Ltd. reported in (1986)
1 SCC 264 wherein the Supreme Court had occasion to consider
Section 29 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. In

25
WPIL No. - 14796 of 2019
Section 29(1) of the said Act, the word ‘permission’ mentioned
remains unqualified while in other Sections of the Act such as
Sections 8 and 31, the expression ‘general or special permision’ is
qualified by the word ‘previous’. Referring to this, the Supreme
Court held that:
“the distinction made by parliament between permission
simpliciter and previous permission in the several
provisions of the same Act cannot be ignored or strained to
be explained away by us.”
6. Proceeding further the Supreme Court held that it is not the way
to interpret statutes and that the proper way is to give due weight
to the use as well as the omission to use the qualifying words in
different provisions of the Act. The said observations of the
Supreme Court in the context of the dispute in that decision cannot
have any bearing to the facts of the present case. The Supreme
Court construed that the mere word ‘permission’ and the words
‘previous permission’ clearly indicated that the parliament
deliberately avoided the qualifying word ‘previous’ in Section
29(1) so as to invest the Reserve Bank of India with a certain
degree of elasticity in the matter of granting permission to non-
resident companies to purchase shares in Indian companies. As far
as the present case on hand is concerned, the mere fact that Article
195 used only ‘salaries’ and ‘allowances’ cannot be construed that
the Constitution prohibited making of any law for the payment of
pension to the ex-members of the Legislative Assembly.
7. The citing of the decision in Calcutta Gas Company
(Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal reported in AIR 1962
SC 1044 by Mr. N.H. Bhatt instead of helping his contention,
makes it clear that the power to legislate given to the appropriate
Legislatures cannot be whittled down in presuming doctrine of
ouster on the reading of a particular Article. In AIR 1962 SC 1044
(supra), the Supreme Court has succinctly stated as to how the
Legislative entries have to be interpreted. It will be useful to refer
the same and we quote the following observation of the Supreme
Court in that decision:
“In the matter of construing entries in the Lists given in
Schedule VII of the Constitution, the following rules of
interpretation are now well-settled. The power to legislate is
given to the appropriate Legislatures by Article 246 of the
Constitution. The entries in the three Lists are only
legislative heads or fields of legislation, they demarcate the
area over which the appropriate Legislatures can operate. It
is also settled that widest amplitude should be given to the
language of the entries. But some of the entries in the
different lists or in the same list may overlap and sometimes

26
WPIL No. - 14796 of 2019
may also appear to be in direct conflict with each other. It is
then the duty of the Court to reconcile the entries and bring
about harmony between them. The underlying principle in
such cases is that a general power ought not to be so
construed as to make a nullity of a particular power
conferred by the same Constitution and operating in the
same field, when by reading the former in a more restricted
sense effect can be given to the latter in its ordinary and
natural meaning. Thus, every attempt should be made to
harmonize the apparently conflicting entries not only of
different Lists but also of the same List and to reject that
construction which will rob one of the entries of its entire
content and make it nugatory.”
8. The learned Advocate General, assisting the Court, submitted
that if it is found that the State has power to legislate on such
matters, it cannot be stated that there is implied restriction by the
Articles of the Constitution.
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:

27
WPIL No. - 14796 of 2019
“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 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. ”
30. Similarly, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of
Purwa Jain vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in
MANU/MP/1893/2022; 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).

28
WPIL No. - 14796 of 2019
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:
“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

29
WPIL No. - 14796 of 2019
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
Interest Litigation is devoid of substance and filed without proper
research. ”
31. Further, this Court finds that recently the Rajasthan High Court
has dealt with similar situation, wherein the Rajasthan Legislative
Assembly (Officers and Members Emoluments and Pension
Amendment) Act, 1956 was sought to be challenged under similar
circumstances. The Division bench of the Rajasthan High Court vide a
judgment dated 7 May, 2026 , rendered in the case of Milap Chand
Dandia V/s State of Rajasthan , reported as [ 2026:RJ-JP:19308-DB]
after noting the judgment passed by the Gujarat High Court and Madhya
Pradesh High Court concluded the issue in the following words:
“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

30
WPIL No. - 14796 of 2019
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. ”
E. REASONING AND FINDINGS
32. We find that the cornerstone of the petitioner’s challenge relates to
the alleged lack of legislative competence. Article 195 of the
Constitution of India explicitly empowers the State Legislature to
determine ‘Salaries and allowances’ of its ‘Members’. Entry 38 of List II
(State List) further fortifies this power by conferring exclusive
legislative competence in respect of emoluments and privileges of
members of the State Legislature. The phraseology used in Article 195 of
the Constitution of India is broad and enabling. It does not impose any
express limitation restricting the Legislature from extending benefits
beyond tenure. The absence of such restrictive language indicates
Constitutional intent to vest wide discretion in the Legislature. Further,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lok Prahari v. Union of India , reported
in (2018) 16 SCC 696 ; has authoritatively recognized the competence of
the Legislature to enact provisions concerning pension and other benefits
to former legislators. Thus, the impugned enactment squarely falls
within the legislative field and cannot be struck down on this ground.
33. While arguing his matter, the petitioner-in-person has argued that
once a person ceases to be a legislator, any continuing financial benefit
is arbitrary and lacks Constitutional sanction. This argument overlooks
the nature and character of legislative office. Unlike conventional
employment, legislative service is rooted in democratic representation.
Legislators often continue to engage with public affairs even after
cessation of tenure. The Legislature, in its wisdom, has considered it
appropriate to provide post-tenure benefits as a measure of social

31
WPIL No. - 14796 of 2019
security and institutional continuity. The material on record reflects that
pension, family pension, medical facilities, and travel allowances are
intended to recognize the nature of duties performed and to ensure that
individuals who have held public office are not left without basic
support. In absence of any Constitutional prohibition, such a policy
decision cannot be invalidated merely because an alternative view is
possible. The petitioner’s principal contention is grounded in Article 14
of the Constitution of India, alleging arbitrariness and discriminatory
treatment. Article 14 of the Constitution of India reads as follows:-
“14. Equality before law :- The State shall not deny to any
person equality before the law or the equal protection of the
laws within the territory of India. ”
34. This necessitates examination of two settled tests: (i) Intelligible
differentia, and (ii) Rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
The classification in the present case distinguishes Members/Ex-
Members of Legislature from other classes such as government servants
or Constitutional functionaries. This classification is clearly intelligible,
as legislators discharge unique Constitutional functions involving law-
making, representation, and governance oversight. The object sought to
be achieved is to ensure effective functioning of legislative institutions
and to provide reasonable post-tenure support. The nexus between
classification and object is evident. The petitioner’s attempt to equate
legislators with government servants is legally untenable. The principle
of equality does not mandate identical treatment of unequals. As
reflected from the record, the Legislature has acted within permissible
bounds of classification. Therefore, in our view the impugned provisions
do not suffer from any kind of arbitrariness or discrimination.
35. A significant portion of the petitioner’s argument relates to the
alleged excessiveness of pension and allowances. This Court is of the
considered view that the quantum of such benefits lies within the
exclusive domain of legislative policy. Courts are neither equipped nor
Constitutionally authorized to determine what constitutes an appropriate
level of pension or allowances for legislators. Such determination

32
WPIL No. - 14796 of 2019
involves complex considerations of public policy, financial implications,
and institutional requirements. The doctrine of separation of powers
mandates judicial restraint, particularly in fiscal and policy matters. The
reasonableness of quantum of pension or allowances cannot be
adjudicated in absence of clear Constitutional violation. In Common
Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India, reported in ( 2002) 1
SCC 88; the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized that Courts should
refrain from interfering in policy decisions unless they are patently
arbitrary or unconstitutional. No such arbitrariness has been
demonstrated in the present case. The petitioner’s restrictive
interpretation of the term “ Member ” has been rightly contested by the
State. The statutory scheme indicates that the Legislature intended to
include within its ambit both “sitting and former members” for the
purpose of certain benefits. The Court must adopt an interpretation that
advances the object of the legislation rather than defeats it. A narrow
construction, as suggested by the petitioner, would render several
provisions otiose and undermine legislative intent. Hence, the broader
interpretation adopted by the State deserves acceptance.
36. The issues raised in the present writ petition are no longer res
integra . The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Lok Prahari
(supra) and Common Cause (supra) , as well as decisions of the
aforementioned High Courts, including this Court have already
examined similar challenges. The doctrine of stare decisis mandates
judicial consistency and certainty. In absence of any distinguishing
feature or change in law, this Court is bound to follow the settled legal
position. In our view, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any
compelling reason to depart from established precedent. The
Constitution envisages a delicate balance between the Legislature,
Executive, and Judiciary. The determination of salaries, allowances, and
pension of legislators is an internal matter of legislative functioning.
Judicial interference in such matters would amount to encroachment
upon legislative domain, which is impermissible unless a clear
Constitutional violation is established. As observed in the material on

33
WPIL No. - 14796 of 2019
record, the Judiciary cannot assume the role of a “second legislature” to
reassess policy choices. Furthermore, the petitioner has sought to rely
upon plethora of judgments to contend arbitrariness and misuse of public
funds. However, the said judgments, when read in proper context, do not
support the petitioner’s case. On the contrary, the precedents relied upon
by the State clearly uphold legislative competence and limit the scope of
judicial interference in the present matter. The petitioner’s interpretation
of the judgments is selective and misplaced.
37. Upon a cumulative and holistic consideration of the pleadings on
record, the applicable statutory framework, and the binding judicial
precedents governing the field, this Court arrives at the following settled
conclusions. Firstly , the impugned legislation squarely falls within the
legislative competence of the State Legislature and does not transgress
any Constitutional limitation in that regard. Secondly , the extension of
benefits to Ex-members represents a conscious and legitimate policy
decision taken by the Legislature, which cannot be faulted merely on the
ground of disagreement. Thirdly , the classification so made does not
suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or hostile discrimination and
therefore, withstands scrutiny under Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. Fourthly , the determination of the quantum of benefits lies within
the exclusive domain of the Legislature and does not ordinarily invite
judicial review in the absence of manifest arbitrariness or
unreasonableness. Fifthly , the issues sought to be raised in the present
petition stand substantially concluded by binding precedents of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, leaving little scope for re-examination. Lastly ,
it is evident that the present petition is, in substance, an endeavor to
re-agitate issues that have already attained finality.
38. In light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the challenge mounted by the petitioner is essentially rooted in a
policy disagreement rather than any demonstrable Constitutional
infirmity. The Constitutional scheme does not inhibit the Legislature
from enacting provisions relating to pension, allowances, or allied

34
WPIL No. - 14796 of 2019
benefits in favour of its ‘Members’, including ‘former members’. In a
democratic polity governed by the doctrine of separation of powers, such
matters are best left to the wisdom and discretion of the Legislature,
subject only to well-defined Constitutional limitations. In the absence of
any violation of such limitations in the present case, any interference by
this Court would be wholly unwarranted and contrary to settled
principles of judicial restraint. There exists no Constitutional embargo
upon the State Legislature in enacting a measure of social security for its
‘Members’, as well as ‘former members’. The nature, character, and
quantum of the benefits so extended do not disclose any manifest
arbitrariness so as to attract the prohibition embodied under Article 14 of
the Constitution of India. Thus, no further indulgence in any manner is
required in the present stale issue, which in a way has attained finality
due to the binding effect of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case
of Lok Prahari (supra) and persuasive effect of judgments delivered on
identical issue by the division benches of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and
Rajasthan High Court.
39. As a sequel to the above findings, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the present petition is devoid of any merits. The same is,
accordingly, dismissed .
40. There shall be no order(s) as to costs.
(Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.)
May 13, 2026
Praveen
Digitally signed by :-
PRAVEEN KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench