State Legislature possesses competence to grant pension to ex-MLAs under Entry 42 of List II.

The petitioner, a 91-year-old resident of Jaipur, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly (Officers and Members Salary, Emoluments and Pension) Act, 1956.

The petitioner specifically contested the provisions granting pensionary benefits and travel reimbursements to former Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs), arguing that such benefits lack constitutional sanction.

The petitioner sought a declaration that the Act is ultra vires and a direction to recover previously paid pensions with interest.

1. Whether the State Legislature has the constitutional competence to enact laws providing for the payment of pension to former MLAs under Article 195 and Entry 38 of List II.

2. Whether the term "salaries and allowances" in Article 195 of the Constitution of India implicitly excludes the power to grant "pension".

Article 195 of the Constitution of India empowers the State Legislature to determine the salaries and allowances of its members.

Article 246(3) read with Entry 42 of List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule grants the State "exclusive power" over "State pensions".

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lok Prahari v. Union of India (2018) 16 SCC 696 held that the absence of an express constitutional mandate for pension does not prohibit the legislature from providing it.

Article 366(17) defines "pension" broadly.

The Court reasoned that while Article 195 deals with "salaries and allowances" during the tenure of office, it does not act as an "implied ouster" or prohibition against granting post-tenure benefits.

The Court observed that the legislative competence for the impugned Act is firmly rooted in Entry 42 of List II ("State pensions"), which covers all pensions payable out of the Consolidated Fund of the State.

Applying the ratio from Lok Prahari, the Court held that pension is not restricted to traditional employer-employee relationships (superannuation) but can be extended to constitutional/political functionaries as a matter of legislative policy to ensure their financial independence.

The Court concluded that since the Constitution does not expressly prohibit such legislation, the court cannot read such a limitation into the text.

The writ petition was dismissed, and all pending applications were closed.

The Court held that matters of legislative policy fall within the domain of the Legislature and, absent a constitutional violation, are beyond judicial interference.