JUDGMENT S.C. Mathur, J. - An association of persons called U.P. Janhit Sangathan has approached this Court through its Secretary, Sri D.N. Mittal, to challenge the validity of the provision for payment of pension to Ex- members of the U.P. Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council of the State of Uttar Pradesh contained in Chapter VIII of the Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidhan Madal (Sadasya Ki Uplabdhi Aur Pension) Adhiniyam, 1980 (U.P. Act no XXIII of 1980) whose English title is the U.P. State Legislature (Members Emoluments and Pension) Act, 1980, for short Act as amended from time to time. The Act provides for other matters also apart from pension but the challenge in the present petition is confined to pension only. 2. Prior to 1952 emoluments of the members of provincial Legislature in the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh were governed by the provisions of United Provinces Legislative Chambers (Member's Emoluments) Act, V of 1938. This was a short Act comprising five sections in all. Section 2 provided for payment of travelling allowance to members of the United Provinces Legislative Assembly and United provinces Legislative Council for journeys done in connection with the duties as members of the Assembly or Council. Apart from travelling allowance, the members were also entitled to daily allowance at the rate prescribed by rules not exceeding Rs. 3/-. Section 3 provided for payment of monthly salary to such members at the rate of Rs. 75/- per mensem subject to deduction for continued absence or other causes prescribed by the rules. Section 5 conferred power to frame rules. The Act did not provide for payment of pension or any other allowance etc., to ex-members of the legislature. 3. 1938 Act was replaced by Uttar Pradesh Legislature Chambers (Members' Emoluments) Act, 1952 (No. XII of 1952). This Act also comprised five Sections. Section 2 provided for payment of travelling and daily allowances to sitting members of both Houses of the State Legislature. Section 3 provided for payment of salary to the said members at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month, subject to deductions for absence from the House. Section 4 repealed 1938 Act. Section 5 conferred power to frame rules. The Act, as originally enacted did not contain any provision for payment of pension to ex- members of the State Legislature. Section 3 provided for payment of salary to the said members at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month, subject to deductions for absence from the House. Section 4 repealed 1938 Act. Section 5 conferred power to frame rules. The Act, as originally enacted did not contain any provision for payment of pension to ex- members of the State Legislature. Between 1952 and 1976 the Act was amended several times enhancing the rates of salary and travelling and daily allowances payable to sitting members and providing for additional facilities and benefits to them but no provision was made for payment of pension or any other allowance etc. to ex-members. Then in 1976 itself, after enactment of Act No. 24 of 1976 another amending Act was enacted, namely, the Uttar Pradesh Legislature Chambers (Members' Emoluments) (Second Amendment) Act, 1976 (No. 49 of 1976) By Section 3 the short title of the original Act was changed to "Uttar Pradesh Legislature Chambers (Emoluments and Pensions) Act". After Section 3, Section 3-A was added which provided for payment of pension to ex- legislators. The minimum pension prescribed was Rs. 300/- per month which was earned on serving as legislator for atleast a total period of five years. For every additional year of membership a pension of Rs. 50/- was provided subject to the maximum of Rs. 500/-. Thus so far as ex-members of the U.P. Legislature are concerned, provision for payment of pension was made for the first time through U.P. Act No. 49 of 1976. The Act was given retroactivity inasmuch as ex-members of the erst-while United provinces Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council which functioned between 1st January, 1946 and the commencement of the Constitution were also made eligible to the pension provision in the Act. The Act was subjected to two more amendments through U.P. Acts numbered 19 of 1978 and 29 of 1979 before being replaced by U.P. Act No. XXIII of 1980. Chapter VIII whereof is under challenge. These amending Acts are not material for our purposes and, therefore, we immediately pass on to the provisions of the impugned Chapter VIII. 4. Chapter VIII bears the heading "Pension to Ex-Members" and consists of Sections 23 to 26. Section 23 defines the terms "Assembly" and "Council" to include United Provinces Legislative Assembly and United Provinces Legislative Council respectively which functioned between 1st January. 4. Chapter VIII bears the heading "Pension to Ex-Members" and consists of Sections 23 to 26. Section 23 defines the terms "Assembly" and "Council" to include United Provinces Legislative Assembly and United Provinces Legislative Council respectively which functioned between 1st January. 1946 and the commencement of the Constitution of India and thereafter as a House of the provisional legislature for the State. Thus in the matter of payment of pension to ex-members retrospectivity was given to the Act. Section 24 provided for payment of pension to such ex-members at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month provided they had served as such for a minimum total period of five years which need not have been continuous. Under the proviso an additional sum of Rs. 50/- per month was payable for every completed year in excess of the five years, subject to the maximum of Rs. 500/- per month. The section, therefore, prescribed Rs. 300/- per month as the minimum pension and Rs. 500/- per month as the maximum pension. The explanation extended the benefit of five years minimum period to those also whose period of membership fell short by one month or less. Section 25 enumerated the circumstances in which the pension prescribed under the Act was not payable. The circumstances were where the ex-members were in receipt of pension or salary exceeding Rs. 500/- from certain other sources. Section 26 provided for reduction of pension in certain cases. This section was attracted where the ex-member was in receipt of pension, salary or remuneration from certain other sources which was less than Rs. 500/- per month. In such an event, the ex- member, instead of getting Rs. 500/- per month got only that amount by which Rs. 500/- fell short. The provisions of Chapter- VIII thus ensured payment from the Government Treasury of an amount not exceeding Rs. 500/- to ex-members of the State Legislature. If the ex-member was getting this amount of higher amount from the sources specified in Section 25, he got nothing as pension under the Act. If he was getting an amount which was less than Rs. 500/-. he got only the balance amount. Under the Act, as, originally enacted, apart from pension, no other facility or allowance was provided to the ex-members. 5. 1980 Act has undergone several amendments. If he was getting an amount which was less than Rs. 500/-. he got only the balance amount. Under the Act, as, originally enacted, apart from pension, no other facility or allowance was provided to the ex-members. 5. 1980 Act has undergone several amendments. The amendments which touch ex-members are U.P. Act numbered 10 of 1981, 13 of 1984, 22 of 1986 and 15 of 1989. 6. By Act No. 10 of 1981 the rate of pension has not been changed but additional benefit has been given. The ex-members have allowed the facility of free travel throughout the State by buses of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation along with one companion. By Act No. 13 of 1984. Section 23 has been amended so as to give further retrospecivity to the provisions relating to payment of pension to ex-members. It covers all those elected to either House of the State legislature since the enactment of Government of India Act, 1935. However, they do not get pension for the period prior to 1st January, 1977. Section 24 has been amended so as to enhance the amount of minimum and maximum pensions from Rs. 300/- and Rs. 500/- to Rs. 500/- and Rs. 750/- respectively. 7. By Act No. 22 of 1986 the minimum and maximum pension rates of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 750/- have been replaced by Rs. 750/- and Rs. 1550/- respectively. By the very recent amending Act No. 15 of 1989 the minimum and maximum pension rates of Rs. 750/- and Rs. 1550/- have been replaced by Rs. 1250/- and Rs. 2050/- respectively. 8. After the above amendments, the position emerging is that today an ex-member elected any time after 1935 is entitled to a pension of Rs. 1250/- if his total period of membership does not exceed five years. If it exceeds five years, he gets additional amount for each completed year subject to the maximum of Rs. 2050/-. In addition to the pension, he is also entitled to free bus travel throughout the State along with a companion. The progress in pension and benefits is reflected in the following chart Pension Minimum Rs. Maximum Rs. Free Bus Travel 1. Prior to 1975 Nil Nil Nil 2. 1976 300.00 500.00 Nil 3. 1981 300.00 500.00 Free bus travel throughout the State with one companion. 4. 1984 500.00 750.00 -do- 5. 1986 750.00 1550.00 -do- 6. The progress in pension and benefits is reflected in the following chart Pension Minimum Rs. Maximum Rs. Free Bus Travel 1. Prior to 1975 Nil Nil Nil 2. 1976 300.00 500.00 Nil 3. 1981 300.00 500.00 Free bus travel throughout the State with one companion. 4. 1984 500.00 750.00 -do- 5. 1986 750.00 1550.00 -do- 6. 1989 1250.00 2050.00 -do- 9. At this stage the position of salary payable to sitting members may also be indicated as some argument was based thereon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Under 1938 Act the monthly salary payable was Rs. 75.00. In 1947 the salary became Rs. 200.00 per month. In 1964 it was raised to Rs. 300.00. The rate of Rs. 300.00 continued upto 31st December, 1976 and with effect from 1st january, 1977 it became Rs. 500.00 per month. This rate continued upto 20th July, 1989. With effect from 21st July. 1989 the salary was raised to Rs. 850.00. 10. Now the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that payment of pension to ex-members in cash or in kind is not sanctioned by any provision of the Constitution, not even by Article 195 of the Constitution. Rather payment of such pension runs counter to the basic structure -f the Constitution which constitutes the country as a Socialist Democratic Republic. The payment of such pension is alleged to be discriminatory because such pension is not allowed to elected representatives of other State organisations, like members of Nagar Palikas and Nagar Mahapalikas. The payment of pension is claimed to be arbitrary also because, firstly, there is no basis for allowing it and secondly it is disproportionately high. The manner in which the Bill was introduced and passed was also the subject of criticism by the learned counsel. 11. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner have been countered by the learned Additional Advocate General Sri R.N. Trivedi who has submitted that the power of the Legislature to legislate is plenary and is subject only to the restrictions and limitations placed by the Constitution itself. On this basis it is submitted that no specific Article in the Constitution is required to be searched for as sanctioning the impugned legislation rather it will have to be shown by the petitioner that there is specific prohibition against such a legislation. On this basis it is submitted that no specific Article in the Constitution is required to be searched for as sanctioning the impugned legislation rather it will have to be shown by the petitioner that there is specific prohibition against such a legislation. According to him, there is no provision in the constitution which prohibits grant of pension to ex-legislators. He has conceded that Article 195 is not attracted. He has invited our attention to certain provisions of the Constitution and has cited a number of authorities. With the aid of Article 212 he has submitted that the manner in which the Bill was introduced in the legislature and passed by it is beyond the pale of judicial scrutiny. 12. Article 195 of the Constitution which figured in the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties provides for salaries and allowances of members of the Legislative Assemblies and Legislative Councils of the State and lays down that members of such Assemblies and Councils shall be entitled to receive such salaries and allowances as may from time to time be determined by the legislature of the concerned State by law. The provision indeed covers only sitting members of the Legislatures and the learned counsel for the parties rightly submitted that it was not applicable to the case on hand. 13. Article 245 of the Constitution lays down that the Parliament may make laws for the whole of the country or any part thereof and similarly legislature of a State may make laws for the whole of the State or any part thereof. The items in respect which the Parliament may legislate are enumerated in List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and the items on which the State legislature may legislate are enumnerated in List 2 of the said Schedule. Then there is List 3 which comprises items on which the Union Parliament and the State Legislature are both competent to legislate. Item 97 in List 1 is a residuary item which empowers the Union Parliament to legislate on any matter not enumerated in Lists 2 and 3. This within their allotted spheres the power to frame laws vests either in the Parliament or in the State Legislature. Item 97 in List 1 is a residuary item which empowers the Union Parliament to legislate on any matter not enumerated in Lists 2 and 3. This within their allotted spheres the power to frame laws vests either in the Parliament or in the State Legislature. Article 245 opens with the words "subject to the provisions of this Constitution." This shows that the restrictions on the power to legislate have to be found in the Constitution itself. The learned counsel for the State, therefore, justified in submitting that the power to legislate is plenary and is subject only to the restrictions prescribed in the Constitution itself. Constitution has in fact prescribed certain restrictions. Examples of such restrictions are to be found in clauses (1) and (2) of Article 286 and Article 303. In taking this view we are fortified by the decisions of their Lordships of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1952 SC 540, Maharaj Umeg Singh v. State of Bombay (see paras 12 and 13) and AIR 1961 SC 1534 , J.K. Jute Mills Co. v. State of U.P.. In para 15 of the later case their Lordships have observed "The power of a Legislature to enact a law with reference to a topic entrusted to it, is, unqualified subject only to any limitation imposed by the Constitution." 14. In view of this legal position it will not be enough for the learned counsel for the petitioner to submit that pension to legislators is not covered by Articles 195 of the Constitution. He will have to show that grant of such pension is expressly prohibited by some provisions of the Constitution. It appears to us that there is no such prohibition; rather there is sanction for grant of pension. 15. He will have to show that grant of such pension is expressly prohibited by some provisions of the Constitution. It appears to us that there is no such prohibition; rather there is sanction for grant of pension. 15. Item 42 of List 2 of the Seventh Schedule reads as follows : State pension; that is to say, pensions payable by the State or out of the consolidated fund of the State." The term "pension" is defined in Clause 17 of Article 366 of the Constitution as follows :- "Pension' means a pension, whether contributory of not, of any kind whatsoever payable to or in respect of any person, and includes retired pay so payable, a gratuity so payable and any sum or sums so payable by way of the return, with or without interest thereon or any other addition thereto, of subscriptions to a provident fund." The use of terms "of any kind whatsoever" and "payable to or in respect of any person" shows that the founding fathers of the Constitution intended to give a very wide meaning to "pension." This intention is also apparent from the use of the word "includes." Thus the definition is not exhaustive it includes other payments of similar nature also. Since the definition in Article 366 (17) is not exhaustive, it is permissible to consult standard Dictionaries also. In Websters Third New International Dictionary, some of the meanings given are as follows : "A fixed sum paid regularly to a person : one paid to an employee for current services; a gratuity granted (as by a Government) as a favour or reward or as a subsidy to a person of recognised merit, literateur or science; one paid under given conditions to a person following his retirement from services (as due to age or disability) or to the surviving dependents of a person entitled to such a pension." The above meanings are also very wide to cover the impugned payment. Under item 42 of List 2 read with Article 366(17) it is permissible for the State Legislature to frame a law providing for payment of old age pension, although such person of old age may not have rendered any service to the State or society. Under item 42 of List 2 read with Article 366(17) it is permissible for the State Legislature to frame a law providing for payment of old age pension, although such person of old age may not have rendered any service to the State or society. If pension can be paid to such a person we fail to appreciate how any exception can be taken to payment of pension to ex-legislators who are paid the same in lieu of past services like Government Servants. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner however, submits that the term "pension" in entry 42 of List II is preceded by term "State" and, therefore, the pension contemplated by entry 42 is the one payable to retired employees of the State Government in recognition of their past services. Neither the term "State" can be given the suggested restrictive meaning nor the term "pension", as the rule of interpretation laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court is that widest amplitude should be given to the language of the entries in the Lists. In Calcutta Gas Co. v. State of West Bengal. AIR 1962 SC 1044 it has been observed : "It is also well settled that widest amplitude should be given to the language of the entries." See paragraph 8 at page 1049). Again in Waverly Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. Raymon and Co. (India) P. Ltd., AIR 1963 SC 90 it has been stated in para 11 at page 95 "The rule of construction is undoubtedly well established that the entries in the Lists should be construed broadly and not in a narrow or pedantic sense." In our opinion noting turns upon the use of the term "State" in entry 42. The term only denotes the authority by which the pension is payable, namely, the State. This conclusion flows from the explanation of the term" State pension" contained in entry 42 itself. It is explained by Saying - "that is to say, pensions payable by the State or out of the consolidated fund of the State." 17. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the Constitution does not prohibit payment of pension to ex-legislators, rather it (sanctions it. 18. It is explained by Saying - "that is to say, pensions payable by the State or out of the consolidated fund of the State." 17. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the Constitution does not prohibit payment of pension to ex-legislators, rather it (sanctions it. 18. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the word "payable" in entry 42 refers to a pre-existing liability and therefore pension could not be provided for ex-legislators of previous legislatures. We are unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel as it is well settled that the legislature has the power to give retrospectivity to the laws framed by it. The word "payable" in entry 42 only denotes the source of payment of pension. It has nothing to do with retrospectivity or prospectivity. 19. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however submits that in order to attract Article 42 the amount must be payable either out of the State funds or out of the consolidated fund of the State but the disputed pension cannot be paid from either of the two funds. 20. State finances are dealt with in Chapter XII of the Constitution. Articles 266 and 267 show that State finances are divisible into three types of funds or accounts viz., 1. Consolidated fund of the State, 2. Public accounts of the State, and 3. Contingency fund of the State. Consolidated fund of the State comprises 1. All revenues received by the State Government, 2. All loans raised by the State Government by issue of Treasury bills; 3. Loans or ways and means advances; and 4. All moneys received by the State Government in repayment of loans. 21. Public account of the State comprises other moneys received by or on behalf of the State. 22. The above two accounts have been created by the Constitution itself. For the third account viz., the contingency fund, the Constitution through Article 267(2) authorises the State Legislature to constitute it. This amount is in the nature of imprest and is utilised for the purpose- of meeting unforeseen expenditure pending authorisation by the State Legislature. 23. Revenue which is a consitutent of the consolidated fund of the State comes to the State directly as well as indirectly. Directly it comes in the form of taxes duties etc., levied and collected by the State itself. 23. Revenue which is a consitutent of the consolidated fund of the State comes to the State directly as well as indirectly. Directly it comes in the form of taxes duties etc., levied and collected by the State itself. Indirectly it comes from the Union under Articles 268, 269, 270, 272 and 275. 24. The above constitutional provisions show how money comes into the coffers of the State. We may now examine the provisions relating to utilisation of this money. Broadly they are contained in Articles 202, 203 and 204. 25. Under Article 202(1) the governor, which means the Ministry, has to lay before the legislature in respect of each financial year an "Annual Financial Statement." This statement contains an estimate of the receipts and expenditure of the State for that year. Under clause (2) the sums required to meet expenditure described in the Constitution as expenditure charged upon the consolidated fund of the State, and the sums required to meet other expenditure proposed to be made from the consolidated fund of the State, are required to be shown separately in the Annual Financial Statement. It is also the requirement of the clause that the Statement shall distinguish expenditure on revenue account from other expenditure. Sub-clauses (a) to lei of clause (3) enumerate items of expenditure which shall be charged on the consolidated fund of the State. These sub- clauses do not cover pension to ex-legislators. Then there is sub-clause (f) which reads thus : "Any other expenditure declared by this Constitution or by the legislature of the State by law, to be so charged." Under Act No. 23 of 1980 expenditure on payment of pension to ex-legislators has not been charged upon the consolidated fund of the State. Our attention has not been drawn to any other law made by the State legislature making the expenditure so charged. The constitution also does make any such provision. We, therefore, proceed on the assumption that payment of pension to ex legislators is not charged upon the consolidated fund of the State, either under the Constitution or under any law framed by the State legislature. The question surviving for consideration is whether on accounts of this, consolidated fund of the State in not available for defraying the expenditure on payment of pension to ex-legislators. 26. The question surviving for consideration is whether on accounts of this, consolidated fund of the State in not available for defraying the expenditure on payment of pension to ex-legislators. 26. We have noticed hereinabove that the estimate of expenditure in the "Annual Financial Statement" has to show, apart from the sums required to meet expenditure described by the Constitution as expenditure charged upon the consolidated fund of the State is available to meet not only that expenditure which is charged upon the consolidated fund of the State but also other expenditure which is proposed to be met from that fund. 27. The significance of showing the two types of expenditure separately in the Annual Financial Statement becomes apparent from Article 203. Clause (1) of this Article lays down that the estimate relating to expenditure charged upon the consolidated fund of the State shall not be submitted to the vote of the Legislative Assembly, although discussion thereon may be held. Clause (2) requires estimates of other expenditure to be submitted to the Legislative Assembly in the form of demands for grants. Under the same clause the Legislative Assembly has the power to give assent to the demand or refuse to give such assent or to give assent subject to a reduction of the amount specified in the demand. From this it would appeal that the two types of expenditure are dealt with differently in the Legislative Assembly. Thus there is procedural difference in dealing with the two types of expenditure in the Assembly. However, the difference is not merely procedural, it is of substance also, inasmuch as expenditure charged upon the consolidated fund of the state is not subject to vote although it is subject to discussion. Consequently amounts specified under this expenditure cannot be reduced by the legislature. But this reduction is possible in the amounts demanded under other expenditure. 28. In view of the above discussion, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that pension to ex-legislators cannot be paid out of the consolidated fund of the State cannot be accepted. In view of this finding it is not necessary for us to consider the availability of the other fund viz., Public Account of the State, for payment of pension to es-legislators. The function of the legislature is to frame laws. In view of this finding it is not necessary for us to consider the availability of the other fund viz., Public Account of the State, for payment of pension to es-legislators. The function of the legislature is to frame laws. Once the law has been framed it is the duty of the Executive to enforce it or carry it out. Payment of pension under the impugned provision is a legislative mandate which the executive will have to obey. In obedience to this mandate, the first step that the executive will have to take would be to make an estimate of the expenditure which it will be required to incur in complying with the mandate. The expenditure will then have to be included in the Annual Financial Statement prepared under clause (1) of Article 202. Since it is not an item charged upon the consolidated fund of the State it may be shown under sub-clause (d) of Clause (2) of Article 202 and may be presented to the Legislative Assembly in the form of demand for grant, as required by clause (2) of Article 203. Such a demand can be reduced by the Legislative Assembly. Obviously the power to reduce the demand will be exercised if the amount demanded is in excess of the requirement. The legislature will not arbitrarily refuse to sanction a demand which is made to meet the obligation imposed by itself. For the discussion herein, we do not see any lack of availability of authorised fund to meet the obligation imposed by the legislature under Chapter VII of the Act in question. 29. Let us now pass on to consider whether grant of pension to ex-legislators runs counter to the basic structure of the Constitution. The preamble of the Constitution does constitute India a "Sovereign Scoialist Democratic Republic". These words have been relied upon for challenging grant of pension to ex-legislators. The submission is that in view of these words sovereignity vests in the people and political right cannot be the property of any individual and the representatives of the people cannot perpetuate their benefit. 30. These words have been relied upon for challenging grant of pension to ex-legislators. The submission is that in view of these words sovereignity vests in the people and political right cannot be the property of any individual and the representatives of the people cannot perpetuate their benefit. 30. We may assume that the attributes of the Indian Republic are as stated by the learned counsel, but we fail to appreciate how thereby the representatives of the people are debarred from framing laws for themselves which will ensure them some benefits which will be available to them when they cease to be members of legislature. Legislation is the exclusive right of the legislature. If a legislation is required for legislature, the same will have to be framed by the legislature itself. Under entries 38 and 39 of List II sitting members of the State legislature are entitled to frame laws for themselves which will govern them during their tenure of membership. We have held hereinabove that the term "State pension" in entry 42 covers pension to ex-legislators. Thus sitting legislators can frame such laws also which would govern them after they have ceased to be members of the legislature. Our attention has not been drawn to any authority or treatise on Socialism or democracy which debars ex-legislators from accepting benefits from the State for their past services nor which debars the legislature of a Socialist Democratic Republic from granting benefits, including pensionery benefits, to its ex-legislators. Accordingly we are unable to hold that the basic structure of the Constitution disables the State legislature from granting pension to its ex-members. 31. The learned counsel had described the grant of benefits to ex-legislators under Chapter VIII as perpetuation of the benefits enjoyed by sitting members. There is vast difference between the two benefits as we will show hereinafter and therefore, the use of the word "perpetuation", in our opinion, is not apt. 32. We may now take up the plea of discrimination. The plea, as noticed earlier, is based on the fact that ex-members of other elected bodies like Nagar Palikas and Nagar Mahapalikas do not get pension. Members of the State legislature cannot be equated with members of the elected bodies constituted under laws framed by ordinary legislature. Members of the State legislature are constitutional functionaries: they are neither Government servants nor public servants they constitute a class by themselves. Members of the State legislature cannot be equated with members of the elected bodies constituted under laws framed by ordinary legislature. Members of the State legislature are constitutional functionaries: they are neither Government servants nor public servants they constitute a class by themselves. They may be equated with members of Parliament who are also constitutional functionaries. Ex-members of Parliament also draw pension under Section 8A of the Salary Allowances and pension of Members of Parliament Act, 1954. This section was added to the original Act through Salaries and Allowance of Members of Parliament (Amendment) Act, 1976 (105 of 1976). Ex-legislators of the State of Uttar Pradesh may also be equated with ex-members of the legislatures of the other States. It is not the case of the petitioner that similar pension or pensionary benefits are not allowed to ex-members of the legislatures of other States. 33. The plea of discrimination is based also on the allegation that continued enjoyment of pension by ex-legislator is not dependent on continued further.good conduct as is the requirement in the case of retired Government servants under paragraph 351 of the Civil Service Regulations. Paragraph 351 does provide that future good conduct is an implied condition of every grant of pension. Under this paragraph right is reserved in favour of the State Government to withhold or withdraw pension or any part thereof if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or is guilty of grave misconduct. Again, a Government servant is not a constitutional functionary. An ex-legislator cannot therefore, be equated with a retired Government servant. There are several constitutional functionaries whose pension rules also do not provide for forfeiture of pension or any other disability on the ground of future misconduct like the Judges of the Supreme Court, Judges of the High Court, Comptroller and Auditor General of India and Members of Parliament whose pension rules are contained in Supreme Court Judges (Conditions of service) Act 1958, High Court Judges (Conditions of services) Act 1954, Comptroller and Auditor-General (Duties, Powers and Conditions of Service) Act, 1971 and the Salaries. Allowances and pension of Members of Parliament Act, 1954, respectively. 34. Not subjecting the pension of an ex-constitutional functionary to the same disqualification to which the pension of a retired Government servant is subject cannot be said to be without basis. Allowances and pension of Members of Parliament Act, 1954, respectively. 34. Not subjecting the pension of an ex-constitutional functionary to the same disqualification to which the pension of a retired Government servant is subject cannot be said to be without basis. The basis, is that they discharge duties of a higher order, namely, duties imposed by the Constitution. 35. In view of the above we are unable to uphold the plea of discrimination. 36. The learned counsel also invited our attention to the rules pertaining to pension payable to Freedom Fighters. These rules do provide forfeiture of pension in certain circumstances, including conviction for certain offences. The submission of the learned counsel was that Freedom Fighters stand on a higher pedestal than ex-legislators and if their pension is subject to forfeiture on account of future misconduct, there is no reasonable basis for not subjecting the pension of ex-legislators to similar disability. The issue raised is moral and not legal. We have already pointed out that ex-legislators are constitutional functionaries and they constitute a class by themselves. Accordingly the discrimination cannot be sustained by reference to forfeiture of pension clause in the Pension Rules of Freedom Fighters. 37. We now come to the plea of arbitrariness. Arbitrariness, as noticed earlier, is alleged on two grounds - (1) there is no basis and (2) the pecuniary benefits are disproportionately high. 38. So far as the basis is concerned, the reason for negativing it are already contained in our observations made hereinabove. A Government servant earns pension for his past services. Legislators also render service to the State or Society and earn pension or pensionary benefits for this service. The permissibility under law has also been discussed hereinabove. Accordingly, the plea of lack of basis cannot be upheld. 39. The pension and the pensionary benefits are projected by the learned counsel for the petitioner as disproportionately high. He points out that while salary of sitting members has not registered appreciable hike since 1952, the pension and pensionary benefits have registered disproportionate hike. 40. It has been noticed hereinabove that from Rs. 75/- per month in 1938. the salary has registered a jump to Rs. 850/- in the year 1989. For a long time there was no provision for payment of pension to ex-legislators. For the first time such a provision was made in the year 1976 when minimum pension was prescribed as Rs. It has been noticed hereinabove that from Rs. 75/- per month in 1938. the salary has registered a jump to Rs. 850/- in the year 1989. For a long time there was no provision for payment of pension to ex-legislators. For the first time such a provision was made in the year 1976 when minimum pension was prescribed as Rs. 300/- and maximum Rs. 500/-. The minimum today is Rs. 1250/- per month and maximum is Rs. 2050/-. Apart from pension, the only other benefit available to an ex-legislator is free bus travel. These benefits cannot be said to be disproportionately high as compared to the salary and benefits available to a sitting member of a legislature. Initially the sitting member started with salary and allowances payable for attending proceedings of the House. No other allowance was payable to him. In course of time several allowances have become available to him. The present cash benefit per month of a sitting legislator of U.P. Legislature is as follows (1) Salary ... Rs. 850-00 (2) Constituency allowance ... Rs. 1,600-00 (3) Daily allowance at the rate of Rs. 85/- ... Rs. 2,550-00 (4) Medical allowances ... Rs. 600-00 Total Rs. 5,600-00 Apart from the above cash benefits, a sitting member gets rent free accommodation at Lucknow and at the place of his normal residence or his constituency. Besides, he has the facility of free rail travel throughout India for which he gets coupons worth Rs. 35,000/-. He is also entitled to free travel by bus throughout the State. On both these travels he is entitled to be accompanied with a companion. Both these travels need not necessarily be made in the discharge of his duties as a legislator. If these benefits are converted into money, the total emoluments of a sitting legislator are bound to be much higher than Rs. 5,600,00/-. When we compare these benefits with the pension and free travel by bus allowed to an ex-legislator, it cannot be said that the pension and pensionary benefit are disproportionately high. 41. The jump in pension from Rs. 300.00/- per month in the year 1976 to Rs. 1,250.00/- in the year 1989 is indeed more than four times but it has to be remembered that in the intervening period the value of the rupee and its purchasing power has considerably gone down. 42. 41. The jump in pension from Rs. 300.00/- per month in the year 1976 to Rs. 1,250.00/- in the year 1989 is indeed more than four times but it has to be remembered that in the intervening period the value of the rupee and its purchasing power has considerably gone down. 42. In view of the above we are unable to hold that the pension and pensionary benefits allowed to ex-legislators are unreasonable and disproportionately high thereby attracting Article 14 of the Constitution. 43. The charge of arbitrariness was also tried to be substantiated by referring to pension scheme for ex-legislators prevailing in other countries of the world. The learned counsel placed before us extracts from a Reference Compendium-Parliaments of the World- edited by Inter-Parliamentary Union. These extracts indicate pension schemes prevailing in different parts of the world. Under the heading "pension scheme" the Compendium contains the following statement : "Pension schemed are usually based on contribution from Members' salaries, typically, a fixed percentage (in Japan 7.6%, in Australia 11.5%) is deducted from their monthly salaries. Members received pension benefits proportional to this monthly contribution, as well as on the basis of a certain number of Years of Parliamentary service and/or on reaching a specified age of retirement. Each of these factors maybe low. Pensions are payable to former Members of the British House of Commons after only 4 years of service provided they have reached the age of 65. A former Member of the Israeli Knesset receives a pension upon reaching 45 years of age, provided he has been a member of the Knesset for at least six years. In the Federal Republic of Germany these factors are inversely proportional, pensions are payable after 8 years service at 65, after 12 yeas service at 60, or after 16 years service at 55. In Demark, the required 8 years parliamentary service need not necessarily be consecutive for a Member to receive a pension." The Compendium also contains a table of Parliamentary Remuneration which shows pension schemes prevailing in several countries of the world. The extracted statement and the table show that there is no uniformity in the grant of pension to legislators. In certain countries pension is payable, in certain other countries it is not payable. The extracted statement and the table show that there is no uniformity in the grant of pension to legislators. In certain countries pension is payable, in certain other countries it is not payable. In certain countries it is payable out of State funds and in certain other countries it is payable out of the contributions from salary made by the legislature during their membership of the legislature. According to the table no pension is payable to an ex-legislator in Bangaladesh, Czechoslevakia, Fiji, Hungary, Kuwait and several other countries, including Pakistan. This table appears to be too ancient to be relied upon, because it records that in India also no pension is payable to an ex-parliamentarian. We have seen hereinabove that pension became payable to ex-members of the Indian Parliament since the year 1976 when Section 8A was added to the Act of 1964. Obviously the Compendium was prepared before 1976. 44. The above table also shows that in certain countries like Australia, Brazil, Cameroon. Canada, France, Ireland, Japan, Malta, New Zealand, South Africa United Kindom and United States of America, there is a pension fund to which members of legislature contribute and pension is paid to ex-members from this fund. In such countries the financial burden of pension paid to ex- legislators does not fall on the state. We may assume that this system of payment of pension is still prevailing in the countries mentioned herein, but thereby payment of pension from State Exchequer to ex-legislators of the State of U.P. will not become vitiated. Every country is entitled to have its own constitutional, legal, social and moral norms but the constitutional validity of a legislative enactment framed by the legislature of one country cannot be tested on the anvil of the norms of other countries. We have got a constitution of our own and the validity of a legislative enactment made by the parliament or State Legislative enactment made by the parliament or State Legislature will have to he tested on the anvil of its provisions alone. In taking this view we have the support of the decision of the Supreme Court in R.S. Joshi v. Ajit Mills, AIR 1977 SC 2279 wherein it has been observed thus : "The Court must also remember the constitutional provision enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court in ..................... In taking this view we have the support of the decision of the Supreme Court in R.S. Joshi v. Ajit Mills, AIR 1977 SC 2279 wherein it has been observed thus : "The Court must also remember the constitutional provision enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court in ..................... that Courts do not substitute their social or economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies," (See paragraph 2 at page 2282.) If the courts cannot substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgments of the legislative bodies, it is obvious that they cannot substitute beliefs held by other countries, however, noble these beliefs may be. 45. The impugned provision was challenged also on the ground that it was a colourable exercise of power. The doctrine of colourable exercise of power has been explained by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Shankernaryana v. State of Mysore, AIR 1966 SC 1571 as follows : "The whole doctrine of colourable legislation resolves itself into the question of competency of a particular legislature to enact a particular law. If the legislature is competent to pass the particular law, the motives which impel it to pass the law are really irrelevant." 46. In R.S. Joshi's case ( AIR 1977 SC 2279 ) (supra) their Lordships have further elaborated the doctrine of colourable exercise of power by observing in paragraph 16 of the judgment at page 2280 as follows : In this branch of law (exercise of legislative power) 'colourable' is not tainted with bad faith or evil motive, it is not perjorative or crooked. Conceptually, colourable is bound up with incompetency ........... A thing is colourable which is, in appearance only and not in reality, what it purports to be ........ In the jurisprudence of power colourable exercise of or fraud on legislative power or, more frightfully, fraud on the Constitution, are expressions which merely mean that the legislature is incompetent to enact a particular law although a label of competency is stuck on it, and then it is colourable legislation. It is very important to note that if the legislature is competent to p ss the particular law, the motives which impelled it to pass the law are really irrelevant (emphais supplied). 47. We have already held hereinabove that the State legislature was competent under Entry 42 of List II to enact the impugned law. It is very important to note that if the legislature is competent to p ss the particular law, the motives which impelled it to pass the law are really irrelevant (emphais supplied). 47. We have already held hereinabove that the State legislature was competent under Entry 42 of List II to enact the impugned law. Accordingly, the challenge based on colourable exercise of power must fail. The legislature of the State of Tamil Nadu has also provided for payment of pension to its ex-members and this provision was challenged by Miss Lily Thomas, an Advocate of the Supreme Court but the challenge failed (see AIR 1985 Mad 240 Lily Thomas v. State of Tamil Nadu. The initial challenge in this case was based on total lack of power to enact the law. This lack of power was pleaded with reference to Articles 186 and 195 read with Entry 38 of List II of the Seventh Schedules which were silent as to pension for ex-members of the legislature. The Madras High Court negatived the challenge observing that the source of power was contained in Article 42. An argument some what similar to that raised before us was raised before the Madras High Court also. It was contended that the members of the legislature were trustees of the public exchequer and in common law trustees were incompetent to provide for their own beneficial enjoyment of the trust fund during their short term as trustees and much more so, after the expiration of the trusteeship unless the deed of trust, namely the Constitution made provision therefor either expressly or by necessary implication. The payment of pension was described as an illegal and gratuitous cash dole without any consideration or quid pro quo which members of the legislature had voted as life long reward for themselves in abuse of their high constitutional powers. The submissions were negatived with the following observations continued in paragraph 14 of the report at page 246 : "These submissions are high sounding and may look attractive if looked at besides the constitutional sphere. So far as this court is concerned, it shall confine its adjudication of the controversy raised before it over the legislative competency by the Yard-stick found in the Constitution itself. So far as this court is concerned, it shall confine its adjudication of the controversy raised before it over the legislative competency by the Yard-stick found in the Constitution itself. If a power has been assumed, which has no foundation in the Constitution, that will be an incompetent power and the resultant statute would be struck down. But, if the power is available and could be spelt out under the Constitutional provisions, it is not possible for this court to bring in any other legal conceptions; or any ethical, social and political conceptions and strike down the legislation which is otherwise constitutionally valid." We are in respectful agreement with the above view. 48. The above judgment was by a learned single Judge. There was an appeal before a Division Bench which also failed. The appellate judgment of the Division Bench is reported in AIR 1986 SC 290 Miss Lily Thomas v. State of Tamil Nadu. 49. The learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to distinguish the above case by pointing out that in that case the challenge based on Article 14 was not entertained as the same had not been raised with specification in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, while in the present case the challenge does not suffer from such deficiency. So far as the challenge raised on April 14 is concerned, we have dealt with it in sufficient detail. Regarding the challenge based on norms obtaining in other countries, we find reinforcement to our conclusions in the judgment of the Madras High Court. 50. It was also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned legislation was hurriedly passed by the legislature. It was pointed out that there was no discussion on the Bill and the same was passed within five minutes of its introduction in the House. The procedure followed has not been shown to us to be contrary to any statutory provision. The challenge pertains to validity of the proceedings in the legislature and such a challenge cannot be entertained in view of Article 212 of the Constitution. 51. In view of the above the petition fails and is hereby dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs. 52. The challenge pertains to validity of the proceedings in the legislature and such a challenge cannot be entertained in view of Article 212 of the Constitution. 51. In view of the above the petition fails and is hereby dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs. 52. Immediately after the judgment had been pronounced the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for certificate of fitness for preferring appeal before their lordships of the Supreme Court. Put up at 2.05 p.m. to day before the bench concerned for consideration of this prayer. Our judgment is based on Supreme Court decisions and, therefore, the writ petition does not raise any substantial question of law of general importance which needs to be decided by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the certificate prayed for is refused.