Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 475 (GAU)

Aghore Debbarma v. State of Tripura

2002-12-05

AMITAVA ROY

body2002
AMITAVA ROY, J.— The petitioners have, in the instant petition, questioned the constitutional validity of the Salary, Allowances and Pension of Members of the Legislative Assembly (Tripura) (Eleventh Amendment) Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act) whereby the amount of pension payable under the Salary, Allowances and Pension of Members of Legislative Assembly (Tripura) Act, 1972, as amended from time to time, was reduced and the provision for medical facilities as introduced by the Tenth Amendment of the aforesaid Act of 1992 was .done away with. 2. I have heard Mr. B.Das, learned senior Advocate assisted by Ms. S.Das, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned State counsel for the respondents. 3. The factual matrix on which the challenge is structured can be gathered from the writ petition. However, keeping in view the limited points canvassed in course of the arguments, it would be sufficient to narrate only those facts which would have a bearing on the same. 4. The petitioner No. 1 claimed to have been elected as Member of the Tripura Territorial Council in the year 1952 and after rendering his services as a Member of the Legislative Assembly for the full term was re-elected in the subsequent election held in 1962 and was also elected as a Member of 1967. 5. The petitioner No. 2 was in the year 1972 elected to the State Legislative Assembly and continued to be so till the dissolution of the House in 1977. 6. The husband of the petitioner No. 3 was an elected Member of the Tripura Territorial Council in 1952 and was re-elected in 1957 and 1962. He was also elected as a Member of the Tripura Legislative Assembly in the year 1967 and completed his term till the dissolution of the House. The husband of the petitioner died in the year 1987. 7. It is the case of the petitioners that Aey have no source of income and that, they are fully dependant on the pension drawn as provided by the Salary, Allowances and Pension of Members of Legislative Assembly (Tripura) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 8. The husband of the petitioner died in the year 1987. 7. It is the case of the petitioners that Aey have no source of income and that, they are fully dependant on the pension drawn as provided by the Salary, Allowances and Pension of Members of Legislative Assembly (Tripura) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 8. The petitioners have contended that after the attainment of Statehood by Tripura on 21.1.1972, the Act was enacted, which of course in its original form, had no provision for awarding/paying any pension to the Members of the Legislative Assembly of the State after they ceased to be the Members thereof. By the amendment of the Act in the year 1976 which came into effect from 9.12,1976, Section 3-A was inserted providing for such pension. In terms of the said provision of the Act, an amount of Rs.300/- per mensem was sanctioned to the persons as enumerated therein. The qualifying period of Membership in the Assembly or the Territorial Council wholly or jointly as referred to therein, was five(5) years. Provision was also made for grant of additional pension @ fifty rupees per mensem for every year in excess of five years with a vertical cap of four hundred and fifty rupees per mensem. The amendments introduced to the Act also contained some restrictions indicating the circumstances under which the benefit of pension could be suspended. 9. Keeping in view the increase in the price index, the official respondents thereafter from time to time effected amendments to the Act enhancing the amount of pension payable. By the 1989 amendment, the amount of rupees three hundred prescribed earlier was enhanced to rupees one thousand and the maximum amount of pension was fixed at rupees one thousand two hundred in place of rupees four hundred fifty paid earlier. By the said amendment, the provision for family pension was made in the form of Section 3B of the Act. The rate of family pension was provided as rupees five hundred per month to the legal heirs of the eligible Members subject to the conditions to be prescribed by the Rules made under the Act. This was followed by another amendment in the year 1991 whereunder the amount of pension was further enhanced to rupees one thousand and three hundred and the maximum amount of pension to rupees one thousand and five hundred. This was followed by another amendment in the year 1991 whereunder the amount of pension was further enhanced to rupees one thousand and three hundred and the maximum amount of pension to rupees one thousand and five hundred. Section 3B providing for family pension was also suitably amended and the amount of rupees five hundred was enhanced to rupees six hundred. By the Tenth Amendment of the Act, the amount of pension was further enhanced to rupees two thousand and five hundred and the 1st proviso to Section 3 A was deleted. The amount of family pension was enhanced to rupees one thousand and two hundred. In addition to the above, medical facilities to the Ex-Members was provided for by Section 8E. 10. While the matter rested at that, by the impugned amendment to the Act made in the year 1993 in the form of the Amendment Act, the amount of pension and that of the family pension stood reduced to rupees one thousand and six hundred respectively. The provision for the medical facilities to the Ex-Members was also removed. Sections 3,4' and 5 of the Amendment Act introducing the amendments as above, resulting in reduction of the amount of pension and the family pension and further discontinuance of the medical facilities have been assailed by the petitioners as illegal and unconstitutional. 11. The grievance of the petitioners is that the enhancement in the rate of pension being in view of the increase in price index resulting in soaring prices of the essential commodities, so as to provide succour to the Ex-Members and the legal heirs of the deceased Ex-Members, the provisions of the Amendment Act reducing the amount of pension being unmindful of the above and, the object and purpose of the Act and its amendments, are wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and irrational and thus being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, are liable to be declared as ultra vires the Constitution. They are further aggrieved by the fact that as by the 1989 Amendment of the Act, provision for medical facilities had been made for the Ex-Members and family of the Ex-Members of the Legislative Assembly. They are further aggrieved by the fact that as by the 1989 Amendment of the Act, provision for medical facilities had been made for the Ex-Members and family of the Ex-Members of the Legislative Assembly. There was no justifiable or conceiveable reason to withdraw the said benefits and in that view of the matter, the impugned provision of the Amendment Act to the said effect, is arbitrary, illegal and unfair impinging upon their fundamental rights to life as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India besides failing the test of the equality clause of the Constitution. According to them, as the continuous increase in price index is a general phenomenon, the impugned provisions of the Amendment Act introducing reduction to the amount of pension and effecting the discontinuance of the medical facilities hither to provided for meeting the minimum essential requirements in life, overlooks the ground realities and is an outcome of mechanical exercise of the law making power rendering the same illegal, unconstitutional, null and void. 12. The official respondents in their affidavit have inter alia, while countering the challenge to the vires of the Amendment Act, maintained that the Salary and Pension Scheme and Family Pension Scheme for the Members of Legislative Assembly and Members of Parliament cannot be equated with those of the Government servants. According to them, the Members of the Parliament and the Legislative Assemblies having dedicated their lives for the betterment of the society and in the service of the nation, they cannot claim a parity in such matters with the civil servants and persons in service relating to the affairs of the State. They have asserted that the Members of the Parliament and the Legislative Assemblies during their tenure are provided with several facilities to which the other Government servants are not entitled. However, realising that the Members of the Tripura Legislative Assembly need some protection after they ceased to be so, the Pension Scheme as narrated above had been introduced. The answering respondents have contended that having regard to the entitlements of the Members of the Parliament and the Legislative Assembly of different States, the steep rise in the amount of pension as may allowable under the Act from 1989 to 1992 was found to be not reasonable. The respondents, however, have not in general denied the claim of the petitioners about the election of the petitioner Nos. The respondents, however, have not in general denied the claim of the petitioners about the election of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and the husband of the petitioner No. 3 to the Tripura Territorial Council and the Tripura Legislative Assembly though they have pointed out some anomalies in figures here and there. The Status of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and that of the husband of the petitioner No. 3 as Ex-Members of the Legislative Assembly of Tripura, under the Act, however, has not been denied by the official respondents. 13. With regard to the provisions of the Amendment Act under attack, the respondents have averred that by the Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Act, a sharp rise was introduced in the Salary, Allowances and Pension of the Members of the Tripura Legislative Assembly. While the salary of a member had been fixed at Rs. 1,500/- per month, his pension, after he had ceased to be a Member of the House had been made Rs. 2,500/- per month which is ex facie opposed to the concept of pension. According to the answering respondents, pension is a periodical payment of grant for the services rendered by a Member as is given to a person after superannuation from Government employment in any case, the amount of pension cannot exceed the amount of salary drawn while holding the office or rendering the services. As such, the hike in the amount of pension made by the aforesaid amendments was abnormal and unusual. Additionally, in the attending facts and circumstances, having regard to the nature of the service in which the Members of the Assembly are engaged together with the other entitlements which they enjoy while in the House, the provision for affording medical facilities to the Ex-Members also is not warranted. It was on those considerations that the impugned provisions of the Amendment Act had been introduced to bring about a reduction in the amount of Pension and Family Pension and to discontinue the medical facilities to the Ex-Members and their family members. It was on those considerations that the impugned provisions of the Amendment Act had been introduced to bring about a reduction in the amount of Pension and Family Pension and to discontinue the medical facilities to the Ex-Members and their family members. They have maintained that as the reduction in the amount of pension and family pension and withdrawal of the medical facilities are backed by the Amendment act, a law which the State Legislature is competent to enact, the contentions regarding violation of the fundamental fights of the petitioners are wholly untenable and are liable to be rejected According to them, therefore, the impugned provisions of the Act do not violate any constitutional provision or mandate as alleged by the petitioners and, therefore, are constitutionally valid 14. Mr. Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, have argued that the amount of pension and family pension allowable to the Ex-Members of the Legislative Assembly and the legal heirs of the deceased members respectively has to be reasonable having regard to the purpose for which the same is decided to be provided to them. He contended that the amount of pension and family pension was rightly enhanced through the amendments to the Act noticing the continuous rise in the price index and the hike in the prices of the essential commodities and, therefore, the abrupt reduction in the amount of pension and the family pension by the impugned provisions of the Act is without any intelligible rationale and is, therefore, perse arbitrary depriving the petitioners and other similarly situated Ex-Members and the family members of the deceased members of their right to life assured under the Constitution. Referring to the stand taken by the official respondents supporting the impugned provisions of the Amendment Act, the learned senior counsel argued that those are wholly illogical and overlooks the contemporary fact situation. He maintained that in the present hard days of crisis, it is in defiance of logic that the reduction of pension and family pension is justifiable when the very purpose of providing the same is to arrange for a decent standard of livelihood for the Ex-Members and the family members of the deceased members so that they can meet the necessities of daily life with reasonable comfort. The learned senior counsel, therefore, urged that the impugned provisions of the Act are wanting in reasonableness and on that ground alone, the same being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, are liable to be declared ultra vires the Constitution. The learned senior counsel in support of his submission, placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in Smti. Maneka Gandhi, Petitioner-Vs-Union of India and another, Respondents, reported in AIR 1978 SC 597 and invited the attention of the court to paragraph 8IB thereof. 15. As against this, Mr. Chakraborty, learned state counsel has submitted that the Members of the Legislative Assembly cannot be equated for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits with the incumbents in public service. According to the learned counsel, the enhancement in the amount of pension and family pension introduced by the amendments to the Act from the Seventh Amendment thereof was somewhat unusual and not called for, considering the entitlements which the Members of a Legislative Assembly enjoy during their tenure in the House. A substantial hike in the salary and pension of the Members was introduced in the Ninth Amendment of the Act and, therefore, it was felt reasonable and proper that the amount of pension and family pension be suitably reduced to maintain the balance. He maintained that the impugned provisions of the Amendment Act do not suffer from the vice of want of legislative competence and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the same cannot said to be violative of the petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India as alleged. Drawing the attention of the Court to the documents annexed to the affidavit of the official respondents disclosing particulars relating to salary, pension etc. admissible to the Members of the Parliament and that of the Legislative Assemblies of various States, the learned state counsel argued that the amount of pension and the family pension following the reduction introduced by the impugned provisions of the Amendment Act cannot, in any view of .the matter, by dubbed as irrational, illogical and unreasonable. According to him the impugned provisions of the Amendment Act are constitutionally valid and the challenge thereto is without any merit. 16. According to him the impugned provisions of the Amendment Act are constitutionally valid and the challenge thereto is without any merit. 16. In reply, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners while conceding that the impugned provisions of the Act had not been challenged on the ground of lack of legislative competence, contended that the justification sought to be put forward on behalf of the official respondents that the reduction in the amount of pension and family pension was reasonable having regard to the Salary, Pension etc, admissible to the Members of the Parliament and that of the Legislative Assemblies of different states, is wholly untenable. If the other states in providing a lesser amount of pension or family pension have failed to discharge their constitutional obligations, the same cannot be put forward as a defence by the official respondents in support of the impugned provisions of the Amendment Act, he argued. 17. The expression "Pension" in service Jurisprudence came up for consideration before the Apex Court in D.S. Nakara and others, Petitioners-Vs-Union of India, reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305 . In its landmark judgment, the Apex Court held that pension was neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer, nor an ex gratia payment. It was considered to be a payment for the past services rendered, a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who in the hey-day of their life had ceaselessly toiled for the employer on an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch. Thus, the pension payable, the Apex Court observed to a Government employee is earned by rendering long and efficient service and, therefore, could be said to be a deferred portion of the compensation for services rendered and the most practical raison detre for pension is the inability to provide for oneself due to old age. 18. As noticed hereinabove, it has been contended on behalf of the respondents that the concept of pension as in Service Jurisprudence is not available in the context of the service rendered by a Member of a Legislative Assembly. According to them, the duties performed and the functions discharged by such a Member cannot be equated with the service as is rendered by an incumbent in public employment. According to them, the duties performed and the functions discharged by such a Member cannot be equated with the service as is rendered by an incumbent in public employment. As a Member of the Legislative Assembly being the elected representative of the people committed to selfless service for the society, he is not expected to work for gain and, therefore, the analogy of pension as is conceived of in Service Jurisprudence cannot be drawn for the services rendered by a Member of the Legislative Assembly in his said capacity. 19. The stand taken by the respondents may not be wholly out of place. In case of public employment, the eligibility of earning pension depends on the prescribed number of qualifying years of service and the amount of pension is computable on the pay last drawn by the superannuated Member of the concerned service. The pension is payable after retirement on attaining the age of superannuation, understandably, at an advanced stage of one's life when the person concerned reasonably may not be expected to take up a new assignment to earn his livelihood. In other words, generally after superannuation, there is no likelihood for the fresh appointment for the retiree and hence the provision for pension. As held by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision, pension is in the form of periodical payments made available to a person as a measure of social justice in acknowledgment of the services rendered by him during the best years of his life and to provide him with reasonable assistance for his rehabilitation during his retired life. 20. Having regard to Section 3-A of the Act, a person eligible for pension has to be a member as defined therein for the period prescribed. The arithmetic for calculating the amount of pension has nothing to do with the salary of the Member. An Ex-Member, on election, may again become a Member of the House and in that eventuality would cease to be an Ex-Member eligible for pension. There is no prescribed age after crossing which a person ceases to be eligible to be elected as a Member of the House unlike a person in public employment. Thus, there is no retirement age as such of a Member of the Assembly. There is no prescribed age after crossing which a person ceases to be eligible to be elected as a Member of the House unlike a person in public employment. Thus, there is no retirement age as such of a Member of the Assembly. The consideration of retirement from service on attaining the age of superannuation and lack of scope of fresh appointment is, thus, not relevant while assessing the amount of pension for them. The inescapable conclusion, therefore, is that an Ex-Member of the Assembly, for the purpose of pension cannot be wholly equated within an incumbent in public employment in view of the above parameters. The only semblance of similarly appears to be that, the purpose of making a provision for pension is to provide some assistance to the Ex-Members and the legal heirs of the deceased Members of the Assembly, to have a decent living but the considerations on which the computation of pension in case of a retired serviceman is based, are not wholly relevant while doing so in case of an Ex-Member of the Assembly. What really then was the reason for providing pension to an Ex-Member of the House in the instant case and, further what criteria was adopted in prescribing the amount thereof? The survey of the provisions of the Act with the amendments leading to the Amendment Act will provide the answer. 21. With the object of providing payment of salary and allowances to the Members of the Legislative Assembly of Tripura as required under Article 195 of the Constitution of India, the Act was enacted to meet the said purpose. Section 2(f) defines "member" and Section 3 thereof provides for the rate of Salary and Allowances as mentioned therein. The enactment was named as "Salary and Allowances of the Members of the Legislative Assembly (Tripura) Act, 1972. The Act was amended in 1976 and was renamed "The Salary, Allowances and Pension of Members of the Legislative Assembly (Tripura) Act, 1972 (for short the Act as referred to above). Section 3-A was introduced providing for pension of three hundred rupees per mensem to every person who had served for a period of not less than five years as a member of the Territorial Council or partly as a member of the Assembly and partly as a member of the Territorial Council. Section 3-A was introduced providing for pension of three hundred rupees per mensem to every person who had served for a period of not less than five years as a member of the Territorial Council or partly as a member of the Assembly and partly as a member of the Territorial Council. The statements of objects and reasons for such amendment inter alia, mentioned that the office of the Member of the Legislative Assembly was of a very important nature in a democratic set up, and, therefore, it is necessary that when a Member ceased to be so, he should be provided with certain money to have a reasonable standard of living so as to enable him to devote himself to the activities beneficial to the State. The Amendment bill, therefore, sought to provide for payment of pension to the retired members of the Legislative Assembly. While die amount of pension was fixed at rupees three hundred per mensem, it was further provided that where any person had served for a period exceeding five years, he would be paid an additional pension of rupees fifty per mensem for every year in excess of five but the pension would not exceed four hundred and fifty rupees per mensem. 22. The qualifying period of five years was reduced to four years by the amendment of the Act in 1983. The salary of a Member which was prescribed to be three hundred and fifty rupees per mensem under the original Act and had been enhanced to rupees four hundred by amendment in the year 1975, was further enhanced to rupees six hundred per mensem by the Fifth Amendment of the Act in the year 1985. The amount of pension payable, however, was not touched. By a further amendment of the Act in the year 1989, the amount of pension was enhanced to rupees one thousand per mensem and the ceiling thereof was fixed at rupees one thousand and two hundred. A provision for family pension was introduced in the form of Section 3 -B by the said amendment. The statement of objects and reasons accompanying the amendment mentioned that the revision of service allowances and other facilities/amenities admissible to the Members of the Assembly had been considered owing to considerable rise in the cost of living, building materials, fuel etc. and other factors connected therewith. The statement of objects and reasons accompanying the amendment mentioned that the revision of service allowances and other facilities/amenities admissible to the Members of the Assembly had been considered owing to considerable rise in the cost of living, building materials, fuel etc. and other factors connected therewith. The salary was also enhanced to rupees one thousand two hundred per mensem. Family pension was fixed at rupees five hundred per mensem. 23. By the amendments to the Apt effected in 1991, the salary was enhanced to rupees one thousand and five hundred per mensem and the amount of pension, to rupees one thousand and three hundred per mensem. The maximum amount of pension payable was, however, fixed at rupees one thousand and five hundred. This was followed by an amendment in the year 1992 where the amount of pension was fixed at a flat rate of rupees two thousand and five hundred per mensem and the family pension at rupees one thousand and two hundred per mensem. Provision for medical facilities was introduced by the 1992 Amendment in the form of Section 8E. The statement of objects and reasons in support of the 1991 and 19*92 amendments clearly indicate that the revision was accorded taking note of the considerable rise in the cost of living and other factors connected therewith. The amount of pension at rupees two thousand and five hundred per mensem was fixed irrespective of the tenure of the membership. It clearly appears from the statement of objects and reasons that such a hike in the amount of pension and family pension was on a consideration of the prevailing price index and distressed condition of many of the Ex-Members of the Legislative Assembly. The Amendment Act of 1993, however, brought in drastic cuts in the amount of pension and family pension. While the amount of pension was reduced to rupees one thousand per mensem with the maximum limit at rupees one thousand and three hundred per mensem., family pension plummeted to rupees six hundred. The provision with regard to medical facilities was deleted. The Amendment Act of 1993, however, brought in drastic cuts in the amount of pension and family pension. While the amount of pension was reduced to rupees one thousand per mensem with the maximum limit at rupees one thousand and three hundred per mensem., family pension plummeted to rupees six hundred. The provision with regard to medical facilities was deleted. A cursory glance at the statements of objects and reasons accompanying the said amendment predicates that it was felt that fixation of the amount of pension at rupees two thousand and five hundred per month in the face of the salary of rupees one thousand and five hundred per month, was against the concept of Pension Scheme as the amount of pension exceeded the amount of salary drawn for holding the office for rendering the service. In the opinion of the Government the steep rise in the salary, Pension and Family Pension brought in by the previous amendments of the Act, was not reasonable and had the potential to disturb the estimation of the people with regard to the democratic norms and principles, the related amendment bill, therefore, proposed to reduce the Salary, Pension and Family Pension and further to delete the provision of medical facilities to the Ex-Members and their family members. By the said amendment, the salary which had been fixed at rupees one thousand five hundred was slashed to rupees one thousand and four hundred per mensem. 24. To comply the survey, one may step beyond the 1993 amendment. By the amendment introduced in the year 1998, the salary was enhanced to rupees two thousand one hundred and fifty per mensem and the pension to rupees one thousand and seven hundred per mensem. The maximum amount of pension payable was paid at rupees two thousand per mensem. Provision for medical treatment of Ex-Members and spouses was reintroduced. The Justification for enhancement in the salary and family pension was considered rise in cost of living, building materials, fuel etc. and factors connected therewith. 25. By the Fifteenth Amendment of the Act introduced in the year 2000, the salary was further enhanced to rupees three thousand and five hundred per mensem, the pension to rupees two thousand and five hundred and maximum limit thereof at rupees three thousand per month. and factors connected therewith. 25. By the Fifteenth Amendment of the Act introduced in the year 2000, the salary was further enhanced to rupees three thousand and five hundred per mensem, the pension to rupees two thousand and five hundred and maximum limit thereof at rupees three thousand per month. The statement of objects and reason disclosed that the amendment was thought necessary keeping in view the steep increase in price of the essential commodities and also other incidental factors connected therewith. 26. It is, thus, easily deducible, referring to the statement of objects and reasons accompanying the amendments to the Act, that the enhancement in the Salary, Pension and Family Pension from time to time was due to increase in the cost of living and the prevailing price index together with the distressed condition of many of the Ex-Members of the Assembly. On the other hand, the explanation in support of the reduction in the salary, pension and family pension made by the 1993 amendment rests firstly on the ground that nation of amount of pension per month at a higher level than that of the salaiy of a sitting member was opposed to the concept of pension and secondly, the steep and unusual rise in the salary or pension and family pension of the representatives of the people, besides being not reasonable, was likely to disturb the peoples notion about the democratic norms and principles. What falls for consideration in the above premises, is whether the reasons cited above in support of the impugned Amendment Act are reasonable, fair and non-arbitrary to stand the test of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the legislative competence of the state having been conceded to by the petitioners. 27. It is no longer res integra that where the challenge is made to a statutory provision, there is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of the enactment and it is presumed that the legislature understands and correctly appreciates the need of its own people and that its law are directed to problems made manifest by experience as was held by the Apex Court amongst others in Ashutosh Gupta, Appellant-Vs-State of Rajasthan and others, Respondents, reported in (2002) 4 SCC 34 . 28. 28. The Court generally leans in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment and the burden is upon him, who assails it that there has been a clear violation of the constitutional principles. The burden of furnishing necessary facts for proving the constitutional invalidity is upon a person who attacks the vires of an enactment. A law may be declared to be unconstitutional on a number of grounds namely, contravention of any fundamental rights, lack of legislative competence, excessive delegation of legislative power, abdication of essential legislative functions, and operation of a State law beyond the boundaries of the State and others. 29. While dealing with the contention that the State Government in reducing the retirement age, had ignored relevant circumstances having a bearing upon the fixation of the age of retirement, the Apex Court in K. Nagaraj and others, Petitioners-Vs-State of Andhra Pradesh and another, Respondents, reported in (1985) 1 SCC 523 held that the impugned decision was in the realm of the legislative policy in the formulation of which the Government must be allowed a free, though fair play. It held that there was no one fixed or focal point of reasonableness' and there could be a large and wide area in which the administrator or the legislator could act without violating the constitutional mandate or reasonableness and that is the area which permits free play in the joints. It was further held therein that the act of a legislature cannot be declare to be invalid for the reason of non-application of mind, albeit and executive act is liable to be struck down on the said consideration. While dealing with the argument of malafide as advanced in that case. The Apex Court laid down that the legislature, as a body cannot be accused for having passed a law for an extraneous purpose. The reasons for passing a law are stated in the objects and reasons and assuming that the executive in a given case had an ulterior motive in moving a legislation, the motive cannot render passing of the law malafide. With reference to the Service Ordinance which was under challenge in the said case, the Apex Court held that the ordinance making powers being legislative in nature, the argument of mala fide is misconceived. 30. With reference to the Service Ordinance which was under challenge in the said case, the Apex Court held that the ordinance making powers being legislative in nature, the argument of mala fide is misconceived. 30. It is in this background, one has to judge whether the impugned amendment falls foul of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 31. In Smti. Maneka Gandhi( supra), the Apex Court while dealing with the challenge that Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967 authorising the passport authority to impound a passport was violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, held that if a law depriving' a person of personal liberty and prescribing a procedure for that purpose within the meaning of Article 21 has to stand the test of one or more of the fundamental rights conferred under Art. 19 which may be applicable in a given situation ex hypothesis, it must also be liable to be tested with reference to Art. 14. In other words, the procedure contemplated by Art. 21 must answer the test of reasonableness in order to be in conformity with Art. 14. This may be relevant for the instant case in as much as, the reduction in the amount of pension and family pension have been effected by a statutory enactment and the question which falls for consideration is whether the impugned provisions of the Amendment Act satisfies the test of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. A machinery in the form of statutory enactment has been provided whereby the amount of pension and family pension has been slashed down and the amendment Act would withstand the Judiciary scrutiny concerning its validity only if the impugned provisions thereof can be adjudged to be reasonable. 32. The Apex Court in the State of A.R and others, Appellants-Vs-Mcdewell & Co. and others, Respondents reported in (1996) 3 SCC 709 was seized with a situation whereby the validity of the A.P. Prohibition(Amendment) Act, 1995 was questioned inter alia, on the ground that it was violative of Art. 14 being arbitrary. It was held that if an enactment is challenged as violative of Article 14, it can be struck down only if it is found that it is violative of the equality clause enshrined therein. It was held that if an enactment is challenged as violative of Article 14, it can be struck down only if it is found that it is violative of the equality clause enshrined therein. The Apex Court further held that no enactment could be struck down by just saying that it was arbitrary or unreasonable and some or the other constitutional infirmity has to be found before invalidating an Act and an enactment cannot be struck down only on the ground that the Court thinks it unjustified. The Parliament and the Legislatures, composed as they are of the representatives of the people, are supposed to know and be aware of the needs of the people and what is good and bad for them. The Court cannot sit in judgment over their wisdom, it observed. 33. The word "Unreasonableness" has been defined in the Black's Law Dictionary as hereunder:- "Unreasonable, Irrational; foolish, unwise; absurd; silly; preposterous, senseless, stupid. Southern Kansas State Lines Co.-Vs-Public Service Commission, 135 Kan. 657,11 P.2d 985, 987. Not reasonable; immoderate; exorbitant. Case-Vs-State, 124 Tax. Cr. R.203,61 S.W. 2d 500. Capricious arbitrary; confiscatory. Harris-Vs-State Corporation Commission, 46 N.M. 352, 129P.2d.323,329." 34. Prof. H. W.D. Wade in his celebrated work "Administrative Law " while dealing with the principle of reasonableness in administrative action has laid down as follows: "The doctrine that powers must be exercised reasonably has to be reconciled with the no less important doctrine that the court must not usurp the discretion of the public authority which Parliament appointed to take the decision. Within the bounds of legal reasonableness is the area in which the deciding authority has genuinely free discretion. If it passes those bounds, it acts ultra vires. The court must therefore resist the temptation to draw the bounds too tightly, merely accordingly to its opinion. It must strive to apply an objective standard which leaves to the deciding authority to the full range of choices which the legislature is presumed to have intended. Decisions which are extravagant or capricious cannot be legitimate. But if the decision is within the confines of reasonableness, it is no part of the court's function to look further into its merits. 'With the question whether particular policy is wise or foolish the court is not concerned; it can only interfere if to pursue it is beyond the powers of the authority. But if the decision is within the confines of reasonableness, it is no part of the court's function to look further into its merits. 'With the question whether particular policy is wise or foolish the court is not concerned; it can only interfere if to pursue it is beyond the powers of the authority. As Lord Hailsham LC ' has said, two reasonable persons can perfectly reasonably come to opposite conclusions on the same set of facts without forfeiting their title to be regard as reasonable.' 35. As the Act with the amendments thereto including the Amendment Act embodies the executive policy on the subject matter thereof, the standard of reasonableness necessary to sustain the attack against unreasonableness of an administrative action as, indicated above would be relevant for resolving the present controversy as well. 36. Another aspect of the matter may be dealt with at this stage itself. The impugned provisions of the Amendment Act are evidently a manifestation of the policy decision of the Government in that regard. Unless such policy decision is wholly capricious, arbitrary and whimsical thereby offending any provision of the Constitution or any other statutory provision, the Court need not embark on a uncharted ocean of public policy as held by the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan, Appellant -Vs- Sevanivatra Karamchari Hitkari Samiti, Respondent reported in (1995) 2 SCC 117 . 37. In the same vein, the Apex Court in Balco Employee s Union(Regd.) Petitioner-Vs-Union of India and others, Respondents (2002) 2 SCC 333 , had held that in a democracy, it is the prerogative of each elected Government to follow its own policy. A change in Government may result in the shift in focus or change in economic policies and such may result in adversely affecting some vested interests. It held that unless any illegality is committed in the execution of the policy or the same is contrary to law or malafide, a decision bringing about change cannot per se be interfered with by the Court. Wisdom and advisability of economic policies are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review unless it can be demonstrated that the policy is contrary to any statutory provision or the constitution. It is not for the Courts to consider relative merits of different economic policies and consider whether a wiser or better one can be evolved, it observed. 38. Wisdom and advisability of economic policies are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review unless it can be demonstrated that the policy is contrary to any statutory provision or the constitution. It is not for the Courts to consider relative merits of different economic policies and consider whether a wiser or better one can be evolved, it observed. 38. On facts, it is noticeable that before the Amendment Act was introduced, the amount of salary receivable by a Member of the Tripura Legislative Assembly was Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees one thousand and five hundred) per month whereas, the amount of pension and family pension was fixed at Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred) per month and Rs. 1,200/- (Rupees one thousand and two hundred) per month. Having regard to the fact that the pension was provided for, to assist the Ex-Member or the legal heirs of a deceased member to meet the expenses of daily necessities of life, the stand of the respondents that the steep hike in the amount of pension and family pension so as to make the same higher than the salary payable to a Member was opposed to the concept of Pension Scheme, cannot be said to be illogical or irrational. As already noticed hereinabove, the concept of pension in respect of an employee retired from public service is not wholly available for an Ex-Member of the Assembly of a State and a membership of a Legislative Assembly cannot be equated with the tenure of an incumbent in public service. The justification provided in the statement of objects and reasons in support of the Amendment Act to the effect that the enhancement in the amount of pension and family pension introduced by the Seventh to Tenth Amendment of the Act besides being unusual had the potential of disturbing the estimation of the people in general about the democratic norms and principles cannot be said to be wholly misplaced. No doubt, the rise in the amount of pension and family pension was on the basis of the increasing cost of living but, if the same is found to be disproportionately high, it cannot be legitimately contended that any enactment to scale down such increase to be commensurate with the salary payable to be suffering from the vice of unreasonableness, if such enactment is based on relevant materials. A member of the Legislative Assembly being the representative of the people and committed to the cause of social service cannot be said to be in public employment, and the pension provided under the Act is supposed to be a token amount payable in acknowledgement of the selfless services rendered by him for the community at large. The same is understandably, not provided as a substitute of salary, after he ceases to be a Member of the Assembly. A Survey of the amendments to the Act even after the Amendment Act indicate that a gradual and proportionate rise in the amount of pension and family pension mentioning a symmetry with the salary has been provided. The notice of this Court has not been invited to any material on record to dislodge the stand of the respondents that the amount of salary, pension and family pension payable to the Members of the Legislative Assemblies of different States are not comparable to those as provided in the Amendment Act. The petitioners have not been able to discharge their burden, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, that the objects and reasons in support of the Amendment Act are irrelevant and extreneous. In other words, no material has been placed on record on behalf of the petitioners to substantiate their contention that the impugned provisions of the Amendment Act are unreasonable and thus, impinge upon the guarantee of equality containing Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In my considered opinion, the objects and reasons prompting the enactment of the Amendment Act cannot be dubbed as preposterous or outrageous in defiance of logic so as to render the impugned enactment unreasonable and thus, make it constitutionally invalid. The power and authority of the executive to mould its policy has to be acknowledged and so long as the policy does not contravene any constitutional or statutory provision, it would not be in the domain of a Court of law to lightly tinker with the same on the ground that a better policy in its opinion could have been evolved. In the case in hand, the petitioners have failed to discharge the said burden. 39. In the case in hand, the petitioners have failed to discharge the said burden. 39. In the light of the above discussion, I am of the view that the impugned provisions of the Amendment Act do not suffer from any unreasonableness so as to adjudge the same unconstitutional being violative of Art. 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The challenge to the vires of the Amendment Act, therefore, has to fail. Petition is devoid of merit and is, dismissed. There would be no order as to costs. Before parting, I wish to place on record my appreciation for Shri N.S. Sengupta, Librarian-cum-Research Officer of Agartala Bench for the painstaking efforts made by him for providing a full and complete compilation of the act with its up-to-date amendments at a short notice.