Dismissed

Shri. Suryakant Manikrao Deshmukh and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Feb 2015PIL/172/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of an amendment raising the pension for Maharashtra State Legislature members. The High Court held this was a policy matter outside their writ jurisdiction and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The Public Interest Litigation was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Shri. Suryakant Manikrao Deshmukh and Anr. Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

1 of 5 PIL.172.2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.172 OF 2014

¶5

Suryakant Manikrao Deshmukh and another Petitioners

¶6

versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra through The Chief Secretary and others

¶8

Respondents

¶9

Mr.P.M.Patil for Petitioners.

¶10

Mr.A.B.Vagyani, Government Pleader with Mr.V.N.Sagare, AGP for Respondents-State.

¶11

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND B.P.COLABAWALLA, J.

¶12

DATE : 2 February 2015

¶13

PC :

¶14

In this Public Interest Litigation, the Petitioners, two in numbers, have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 3(1)(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Legislature Members' Pension Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as Maharashtra Act No.I of 1977), as amended by Maharashtra Act No.XXIV of 2013. Prior to the amendment, the pension payable

¶15

2 of 5 PIL.172.2014

¶16

to the members of the Legislature in the State of Maharashtra was Rs.25,000/- per month. By the impugned amendment, the amount has been raised to Rs.40,000/- per month.

¶17

Section 3 of the Maharashtra Act No.I of 1977 as originally enacted read as under :

¶18

"3. Pension payable to the members :

¶19

(1) There shall be paid a pension of one thousand rupees per month to every person who on his election or nomination as a member of the State Legislature has taken or takes oath as such member of either House of State Legislature.

¶20

Provided that, where any person has served as a member for a period exceeding five years, there shall be paid to him an additional pension of one hundred rupees per month for every year in excess of five years :"

¶21

In the additional affidavit-in-reply dated 13 January 2015, filed on behalf of respondent nos.1,2 and 5, the respondents have pointed out the details as to initial amount of pension as per Maharashtra Act No.I of 1977 and the amounts of pension pursuant to the subsequent amendments, which read as under :

¶22

3 of 5 PIL.172.2014

¶23

Sr. Nos.	Date/Year Enactment Amendment Mah.Act No.I 1977	Amount of Pension per month/Rs.	Additional Pension per month for more than 5 years of service/Rs.
1	Before 1993	1,000/-	100/- (for every additionalyear)
2	01/08/93	1500/-	200/-
3	01/05/99	2,000/-	-
4	01/09/00	4000/-	-
5	01/01/05	6,000/-	500/-
6	01/04/07	8,000/-	-
7	01/05/08	10,000/-	750/-
8	01/05/09	15,000/-	1,000/-
9	01/05/11	25,000/-	1,000/-
10	08/01/13	40,000/-	2,000/-

¶24

Section 3 of Maharashtra Act No.XXIV of 2013 has been amended as under :

¶25

"2. Amendment of Section 3 of Maharashtra Act No.I of 1977 :

¶26

In Section 3 of the Maharashtra Legislature Members' Pension act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Principal Act"), in sub-section (1)-

¶27

(a) for the words "twenty five thousand rupees", the words "forty thousand rupees" shall be substituted;

¶28

(b) in the first proviso, for the words "one thousand rupees", the words "two thousand rupees" shall be substituted."

¶29

4 of 5 PIL.172.2014

¶30

In the affidavit-in-reply dated 8 October 2014, an explanation has been given for raising the amount of pension and the amount of additional pension for additional service rendered by the members of Legislatures beyond the period of five years. It is also pointed out in the additional affidavit-inreply dated 13 January 2015 that pension is also being paid to the members of Legislatures of other States, such as, Aasam, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and Members of Parliament. With effect from 18 May 2009, the members of Parliament are also paid pension upon completion of their term.

¶31

It is pertinent to note that the provisions of Section 12B of Tamil Nadu Payment of Salaries Act (20 of 1951) providing for payment of pension to the members of State Legislature were challenged in M/s.Lily Thomas Vs. State of Tamil Nadu¹ . A Division Bench of the Madras High Court upheld the legislative competence of the State Legislature to grant the pension to the members of State Legislature.

¶32

It is necessary to note that in this petition, the Petitioners do not challenge the constitutional validity of Maharashtra Act No.I of 1977 (The Maharashtra Legislature Members' Pension Act, 1976) but only the amendments made by the Maharashtra Act No.XXIV of 2013 raising the amount of

¶33

1 AIR-1986-Madras-290

¶34

5 of 5 PIL.172.2014

¶35

pension from Rs.25,000/- p.m. to Rs.40,000/- p.m. and the amount of additional pension from Rs.1,000/- p.m. to Rs.2,000/- p.m.

¶36

What should be the amount of pension payable to the members of the State Legislature is a policy matter and this Court in exercise of its discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not sit in appeal over that policy decision taken by the State Legislature. On this short ground alone, we are not inclined to entertain this Public Interest Litigation.

¶37

The PIL is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to

¶38

costs.

¶39

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶40

(B.P.COLABAWALLA, J.)

¶41

MST

Shri. Suryakant Manikrao Deshmukh and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Suryakant Manikrao Deshmukh and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Shaligram Gondkar Vs Maharashtra State Co-Operative Tribal Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Mr. Bhupal Mahipati Shete Major and Vs Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Nirbhay Foundation, through Shri. Manoj Suresh Pingale Vs Mumbai Nashik Exprressway Ltd. and Ors.

Mr. Bhupal Mahipati Shete Major and Vs Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Mrs. Barnes S.G.P Vs the Municipal Commissioner of Bmc and a 8 Ors.

Ramkrishna S/O Kashiram Nirgulkar Vs Zilla Parishad, Nagpur through Its Ceo, Nagpur (Water and Sanitation Dept.) and Others

Disha (Developing Intervention for Social Human Action) Thr. Secretary, Ps Khandpasore, Amravati Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Law and Judiciary, Dept. Mumbai and 2 Others

Ashok S/O Gulbchand Bhutada Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Department of Water Supply and Cleanliness and 2 Oth.

Zuber Ali Vs Astha Commodities

Maharasthra State Electricity Generation Company Ltd. Vs Dirk India Pvt. Ltd.

The Collector, Satara and Anr. Vs Backward Class Boys Hostels through Its Superintendent Shri Devche D. Hanumant and Ors.

Anna Balgonda Patil Vs State of Maharashtra through Industries, Energy and Labour Dept.

Hbs View Private Limited and 2 Ors. Vs Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority and 5 Ors.

Shri. Prakash P. Kukreja Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.