Kerala High Court
V.S.Vijayaraghavan vs The Secretary General on 23 February, 2024
Author: P Gopinath
Bench: P Gopinath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 4TH MAGHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 17691 OF 2013
PETITIONER:
V.S.VIJAYARAGHAVAN
FORMER MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT (LOK SABHA), RESIDING
AT VADAKKUMPURAM HOUSE, ERIMAYUR PO, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)
SRI.S.SUJIN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SECRETARY GENERAL
LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT, PARLIAMENT HOUSE ANNEXE
NEW DELHI-110 001.
2 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA MIM NISTRY OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS, NEW
DELHI-110001
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA
SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA
SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIRASG OF INDIA
ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.17691/2013 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a former member of Parliament (Lok Sabha).
Following the completion of his tenure as a member of Parliament,
the petitioner was sanctioned a monthly pension at the rate of
Rs.16,000/- per month under 'The Salary, Allowances and
Pension of Members of Parliament Act, 1954' (hereinafter
referred to as the '1954 Act'). By Act 37 of 2010, the pension payable
in terms of the provisions of the 1954 Act was revised as Rs.35,000/-
per month with effect from 18.5.2009.
2. For the period from 5.12.2008 till 21.11.2011, the
petitioner was functioning as the Chairman of the Coir Board, in
terms of Ext.P1 order issued by the Government of India in the
Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises. The petitioner's case
is that though the pension payable to former members of Parliament
was revised with effect from 18.5.2009 as above, the petitioner was
granted the benefit of revision only from 22.11.2011 and by Ext. P3
letter issued by the Pay and Accounts Office, Lok Sabha, the amount
of Rs.16,000/- paid to him as pension for the period from 5.12.2008
to 21.11.2011 (the period during which the petitioner served as
Chairman, Coir Board) is also to be recovered from him.
3. Sri. N.N. Sugunapalan, the learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner on the instructions of Sri.S.Sujin
contends that the provisions of section 8A of the 1954 Act do not
contemplate that the honorarium paid to the petitioner as Chairman
of the Coir Board should be factored while considering the amount of
pension payable to the petitioner in terms of the 1954 Act. It is
submitted that Section 8A of the 1954 Act on which the respondents
place considerable reliance, contemplates only salary and that too in
employment under the Central Government or the State Government
or any Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or
the State Government or any local authority and does not contemplate
the honorarium paid to the petitioner in terms of Ext.P1 order of
appointment. It is submitted that certain other members of
parliament have been paid revised pensions even when they were
serving either as members of the Legislative Assembly of Kerala or
under the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, and differential treatment
has been meted out only to the petitioner.
4. The learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing
for the respondents would refer to the counter affidavit filed in this
case to point out that when any amount is received by a person
entitled to pension in terms of the 1954 Act (whether it is called
'salary' or 'honorarium') from the Central Government/State
Government or any Corporation owned or controlled by the Central
Government or State Government or any local authority, such amount
has to be factored for deciding as to whether the person concerned is
entitled to a pension in terms of 1954 Act. Reference is made to the
provisions of Section 8A of the 1954 Act and also to the terms of the
appointment of the petitioner as Chairman of the Coir Board to show
that even in terms of Ext.P1, the amount paid to the petitioner was
described as 'salary' though it was also referred to as 'honorarium'. It
is submitted that even if the amount paid to the petitioner is treated
only as an honorarium, nothing turns on this fact as the provisions of
Section 8A of the 1954 Act make it clear that any remuneration
received by the petitioner has to be factored for the purposes of
determining the amount of pension payable under the 1954 Act. It is
submitted that, in the case of one of the former members of the
Parliament, whose name is mentioned in the writ petition, the said
member of Parliament was paid a revised pension in terms of 1954
Act only with effect from 2.4.2012 after factoring his tenure as a
Member of the Legislative Assembly in the State of Kerala. It is
submitted that, in the case of the other member of Parliament whose
case is pointed out by the petitioner, the person concerned was not re-
employed in civil services or under the State Government or the
Central Government. It is submitted that, while the Coir Board had
adopted the Office Memorandum issued by the Department of
Personal and Training, Government of India, regarding fixation of pay
on re-employment after rendering pensionable service, such orders
had not been adopted by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation where the
other member of Parliament had been serving while he was getting
the pension in terms of the provisions contained in the 1954 Act. It is
submitted that there is no discrimination meted out to the petitioner.
5. Having heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India
appearing for the respondents, I believe that the petitioner has not
made out any case for the grant of the reliefs sought in the writ
petition. The provisions of Section 8A of the 1954 Act reads thus:-
"......... Where any person entitled to pension under sub-section
(1),-- (i) is elected to the office of the President or Vice-President
or is appointed to the office of the Governor of any State or the
Administrator of any Union territory; or (ii) becomes a member
of the Council of States or the House of the People or any
Legislative Assembly of a State or Union territory or any
Legislative Council of a State or the Metropolitan Council of Delhi
constituted under section 3 of the Delhi Administration Act, 1966;
or (iii) is employed on a salary under the Central Government or
any State Government or any corporation owned or controlled by
the Central Government or any State Government, or any local
authority or becomes otherwise entitled to any remuneration
from such Government, corporation or local authority. such
person shall not be entitled to any pension under sub-section (1)
for the period during which he continues to hold such office or as
such member, or is so employed or continued to be entitled to such
remuneration:
Provided that where the salary payable to such person for
holding such office or being such member or so employed, or
where the remuneration referred to in clause (iii) payable to such
person, is, in either case, less than the pension payable to him
under sub-section (1), such person shall be entitled only to receive
the balance as pension under that sub-section.
The pension payable to the petitioner as a member of the 7 th, 8th and
10th Lok Sabha was Rs.35,000/- from 18.5.2009. However, since he
was getting remuneration of Rs.40,000/- while functioning as the
Chairman of the Coir Board, no amount of pension was actually
payable to the petitioner for the period from 5.12.2008 to 21.11.2011,
that is, during the period during which he functioned as the Chairman
of the Coir Board. The cases of discrimination pointed out by the
petitioner have been satisfactorily explained by the respondents.
However, I do not intend to consider that issue in any detail as even if
any person has been paid pension contrary to the stipulations
contained in Section 8A of the 1954 Act, the petitioner cannot, on
such basis, claim that he should also be paid pension ignoring the
remuneration being paid to him while he was functioning as the
Chairman of the Coir Board for the period from 5.12.2008 to
21.11.2011 as it is well settled that there is no negative equality under
the Constitution of India. In other words, if any payment contrary to
the provisions of Section 8A has been made to the persons mentioned
in the writ petition, that does not entitle the petitioner to claim that
similar treatment must be extended to him. The contention of the
learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner
was only getting an honorarium also does not appeal to me as the
provisions of Section 8A of the 1954 Act make it clear that any kind of
remuneration would be factored for the purposes of Section 8A.
Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to receive pension under the
provisions of the 1954 Act, ignoring the amount received by the
petitioner while functioning as the Chairman of the Coir Board.
However, it is to be noticed that Ext.P3 order, to the extent it directs
the recovery of the overpayment of Rs.16,000/- per month for the
period from 05.12.2008 to 21.11.2011, is liable to be set aside. It is to
be noticed that Ext.P3 order was passed when the petitioner
approached the authorities seeking the grant of a revised pension. The
petitioner was not put on notice regarding any proposal for recovery.
In such circumstances, it can only be held that the recovery ordered in
terms of Ext.P3 for the period from 05.12.2008 to 21.11.2011 is liable
to be set aside.
Accordingly, this writ petition will stand disposed of, holding
that the petitioner is not entitled to a pension under the provisions of
the 1954 Act, ignoring the amounts he received while functioning as
Chairman of the Coir Board. However, any amount paid to the
petitioner during the period from 05.12.2008 to 21.11.2011 shall not
be recovered from him. Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
acd
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17691/2013
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
31-7-2009 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF
MICRO, SMALL & MEDIUM ENTERPRISES, GOVT.
OF INDIA CONTAINING THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF THE APPOINTMENT OF THE
PETITIONER AS CHAIRMAN, COIR BOARD.
EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 18-1-2012 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE JOINT SECRETARY,
LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI.
EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION
FIXATION ORDER NO.PEN/LSS/MP/9/42/PA(CF)
DATED 19-6-2012 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER
BY THE PAY & ACCOUNTS OFFICER, LOK SABHA
SECRETARIAT.
EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION
FIXATION ORDER DATED 31-10-2012 ISSUED
TO SHRI.RAMESH CHENNITHALA, EX.MP BY THE
PAY & ACCOUNTS OFFICER, LOK SABHA
SECRETARIAT.
EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 7-3-2013
EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER
NO.11/4/59/EX.MP/MSA/LSS/2013 DATED 11-
6-2013 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT.
