Allahabad high court dismisses plea challenging pension, benefits for former UP MLAs, MLCs

LUCKNOW: A Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the legal provisions granting pension, family pension and other facilities to former Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) and Members of the Legislative Council (MLCs) . The court observed that provisions relating to pension and allied benefits fall within the legislative domain and cannot be declared unconstitutional merely on the basis of policy disagreement. The Constitutional scheme does not inhibit the Legislature from enacting provisions relating to pension, allowances, or allied benefits in favour of its ‘Members’, including ‘former members’, said the bench.A bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice A K Chaudhary passed the verdict on a Public Interest Litigation petition filed by S.N. Shukla, general secretary of an NGO - Lok Prahari. The bench had completed its hearing on February 17, 2026 and delivered its verdict on May 13, 2026.In its judgment, the bench observed, “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.”The petition had sought declaration of various provisions of the Uttar Pradesh State Legislature (Members’ Emoluments, Allowances and Pension) Act, 1980 as unconstitutional. The petitioner contended that extending pension, medical, travel and other facilities to former MLAs , MLCs and their family members was contrary to the spirit of the Constitution of India . A direction was also sought restraining the state government from continuing such payments.During the hearing, the state government submitted that pension granted to legislators was neither a charity nor an ex- gratia benefit but a statutory facility provided in recognition of public service rendered during their legislative tenure. It was further argued that the provisions had been enacted through legislation by the state legislature and could not be termed arbitrary.