Chandigarh2 hours ago
- copy link
The pension of 4 big leaders of Haryana is under threat. The name of former CM Om Prakash Chautala is also included in the list of these leaders. These leaders are accused of taking the pension of being a former MLA even after being convicted in criminal cases.
However, the matter is currently going on in the Punjab-Haryana High Court. During the hearing, the High Court has asked the leaders why their pension should not be stopped. The next hearing of this case will be held in March.
These leaders including OP Chautala have been punished
On December 16, 2013, during the hearing, the former CM OP Chautala, his son Ajay Chautala and former MLA Sher Singh Badshami were sentenced to 10 years in the corruption case. Apart from this, former Speaker Satbir Singh Kadian has also been sentenced to seven years imprisonment on 26 August 2016. Satbir Kadian has passed away. Now his family is getting pension. There is no provision of pension to the MLA after the conviction. As such it is illegal.
Which leader is getting how much pension
Former CM OP Chautala is getting pension of Rs 2 lakh 15 thousand 430 per month. While his son Ajay Chautala is getting a pension of Rs 50,000 per month. Former MLAs Satbir Singh Kadian and Sher Singh Barmashi are also taking a pension of Rs 50 thousand 10 from the Haryana government.
288 former MLAs are taking pension
In the Haryana Secretariat, petitioner HC Arora had filed a petition regarding the pension of former MLAs, in which it was informed that at present there are 288 former MLAs who are taking pension. Among them, four former MLAs are those who have been sentenced in different cases.
The lawyer argued this
Advocate HC Arora, who filed the petition, said that under Section 7-A (1-A) of the Haryana Legislative Assembly (Salaries, Allowances and Pension of Members) Act, 1975, it is clearly written that if an MLA is sentenced by the court So he becomes ineligible for pension. Earlier, he had given an application to stop the pension in front of the Assembly Secretary.
The assembly secretary justified it under the Salary and Allowances and Pension Act. The Secretary said in the judgment that his membership was never canceled under the Anti-Defection Act nor was he disqualified under the Representation of the People Act. Because of this he had to come to the High Court.