2001 (2) TMI 1058 - HC - Indian Laws

Court orders prompt decision on pension application under Gujarat Legislative Assembly Members' Pension Act

Chandrakant Muljibhai Parikh Versus State Of Gujarat

The Court allowed the petition, directing the Government of Gujarat to decide the petitioner's application for pension within three months, without ... - Issues Involved:1. Inaction of the Government of Gujarat in framing rules under the Gujarat Legislative Assembly Members' Pension Act, 1984.2. Petitioner's entitlement to pension despite the absence of rules.3. Whether the Court can direct the Government to frame rules.Detailed Analysis:1. Inaction of the Government of Gujarat in Framing Rules:The petitioner, an ex-M.L.A., filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ directing the Government of Gujarat to frame the rules for pension under the Gujarat Legislative Assembly Members' Pension Act, 1984. The petitioner served as a Member of the Gujarat Legislative Assembly from 1967 to 1977. The Act was passed in 1984 and brought into force in 1989, but the rules required under Section 5 of the Act were not framed until 1992. The petitioner argued that the Government's inaction impaired his legal right to pension, asserting that it was the bounden duty of the Executive to frame the rules within a reasonable time.2. Petitioner's Entitlement to Pension Despite the Absence of Rules:The petitioner contended that he was entitled to pension as per Section 3 of the Act, which was not contingent upon the framing of rules. Section 3 provided for a pension of Rs. 300 per month for members who served a term of five years, with additional pension for service exceeding five years. The petitioner argued that the Government had no justifiable reason to deny the payment of pension on the ground that the rules were not framed.3. Whether the Court Can Direct the Government to Frame Rules:The Government Pleader argued that the petitioner did not have an unfettered right to pension, as it was subject to the framing of rules under Section 5 of the Act. The word 'may' in Section 5 indicated discretion for the Executive to frame rules, and the Court could not direct the Executive to frame rules. The Government cited several Supreme Court decisions to support their position that the Court cannot mandate the Legislature or subordinate legislative body to enact or not to enact a law.The petitioner's counsel countered that the delegation of rule-making power to the Executive was a form of Delegated Legislation, not Conditional Legislation. The Court could direct the Executive to frame rules if the delegation was not conditional. The Court examined whether it could direct the Government to frame rules, considering the constitutional separation of powers among the Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary. The Court recognized that while it could not direct the Legislature to enact laws, it could intervene if the Executive's inaction frustrated the purpose of an already enacted law.The Court concluded that the delegation in this case was Delegated Legislation, not Conditional Legislation. Section 3 of the Act was independent and not subject to the framing of rules under Section 5. Therefore, the Court could direct the Government to frame rules to further the Act's objectives. The Court emphasized that the Executive's prolonged inaction undermined the rule of law and democratic values.Judgment:The Court allowed the petition, directing the Government to decide the petitioner's application for pension within three months, considering Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, without abstaining on the ground that rules were not framed. Additionally, the Government was directed to frame the rules under Section 5 of the Act within ten months. The petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute.