TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
Sports
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | United StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | Time CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
EntertainmentIPL 2025
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
Advertisement

Election set aside, MLA can't get pension: HC

Saurabh Malik Chandigarh, September 29 The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that a person cannot claim pension after his election as an MLA has been set aside. Claim unsustainable Where the election itself has been nullified,...
Advertisement

Saurabh Malik

Advertisement

Chandigarh, September 29

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that a person cannot claim pension after his election as an MLA has been set aside.

Claim unsustainable

Advertisement

Where the election itself has been nullified, there is no question of the appellant being entitled to claim himself to be an ex-MLA. The claim, as has been projected by the appellant before this court, is unsustainable.” Justice Augustine George Masih & Justice Alok Jain, HC

A Division Bench also made it clear that the rejection of the claim in one such matter more than two decades ago, thus, could not be said to be illegal or not in accordance with law.

The assertion by the Bench of Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Alok Jain came on an appeal by Ramesh Kashyap against the State of Haryana and another respondent. The matter was placed before the Division Bench after the single bench dismissed an earlier plea on the grounds of inordinate delay and latches in approaching the court.

His counsel said pension was a recurring loss. As such, delay could not be a ground for not allowing the appellant to approach the court.

The Division Bench asserted that the appellant was confronted with the order dated September 18, 2001, before asking him about his entitlement to the benefit of the pension, especially when his election was declared void by the High Court, vide order dated April 21, 1999.

His counsel, in turn, referred to an interim order passed by the Supreme Court on May 14, 1999, on the appellant’s plea. The counsel contended that the appellant was permitted to perform his duties as MLA. As such, he would be entitled to the “benefit of being an ex-MLA and thus, the pension”.

The Bench asserted that the counsel, however, could not dispute the fact that the legislative assembly was dissolved on December 14, 1999.

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement