KARNAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal is if the appellant, whose election to the Legislative Assembly of Punjab was set aside by the tribunal for improper rejection of nomination paperof another candidate, is entitled to pension and other benefits under Haryana Legislative Assembly (Allowances and Pension of Members) Act, 1975, as it a stood in 1978, (for short 'the 1975 Act').

(2.) In 1952 the appellant was elected as member of the Legislative Assembly of the erstwhile State of Punjab from Dabwali Constituency. He served as a member from February 195 2/05/1953 till his election was set aside by the tribunal in May 1953. The operative portion of the tribunal's order dated 16/5/1953 reads as under :

(3.) This order became final. In 1966 on reorganisation of the State of Punjab Dabwali Constituency became a part of the Haryana State. The Haryana Legislature enacted the 1975 Act. Rules were framed in 1978. The appellant made representation for various benefits under S. 7-A, 7-B and 7-C of the 1975 Act. It was rejected in 1986. He, therefore, filed the writ petition seeking direction to pay him pension and other benefits as provided in the 1975 Act. The learned Single Judge held that even though Section 100 and Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short 'the RP Act') provided for declaration of election to be void, but this declaration could be obtained, only, if someone approached the tribunal. In other words, if no one would have approached the appellant would have continued as a member. Consequently, according to learned Single Judge, the election of the appellant became void not because it was so from its inception but it was voidable and was avoided by filing a petition only. Therefore, it became void from the date of declaration and not prior to it. Support for it was drawn from Ss. (1-A) and it was held that in absence of any specific provision like the one for corrupt practices the legislature did not intend to deny pension to a member whose election was declared void for no fault of his. The division bench did not agree with this reasoning and construction of the provisions of the RP Act or the 1975 Act and held that the effect of the order of the tribunal was that the appellant could not be deemed to be a member of the Legislative Assembly right from the beginning.