Chennai: In a significant judgment, which will set a judicial precedent, the Madras high court has held that the MLAs/MPs gets elected upon a promise to serve people as their representative and the remuneration or emoluments cannot be equated to ‘salary’ of a government servant, even if it is termed so. It directed former Congress MLA P.Veldurai to refund the salary earned by him during his tenure as MLA on his subsequent disqualification.
Justice V.Parthiban gave the ruling while dismissing a petition from former Congress MLA P.Veldurai, challenging an order of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly secretary, which directed him to refund a sum of Rs 21.59 lakh received by him as salary during his tenure as MLA from May 2006 to 2011 on his disqualification subsequently after completion of his five year term.
Originally, the then and defeated AIADMK candidate P.H.Manoj Pandian had filed an objection regarding the qualification of Veldurai at the time of filing of nomination on the ground that he was a government contractor. However, the objection was overruled. In the meantime, Veldurai got elected as member of the 13th legislative assembly from Cheranmadevi constituency in the election held on May 8, 2006.
Thereafter, he served as MLA from 2006 and completed his term for a period of five years till 2011. Meanwhile, Manoj Pandian filed an election petition challenging the election of Veldurai and the Madras high court had dismissed the same. On a SLP filed by Manoj Pandian, the Supreme Court had on April 13, 2011, allowed the same and set aside the election of Veldurai on the ground that he suffered disqualification. Veldurai preferred a review petition which was also dismissed. Thereafter, the Assembly secretary passed the present order.
Concurring with the submission of additional advocate general S.R.Rajagopal assisted by special government pleader J.Pothiraj, Justice Parthiban said surely, no MLA or MP stands in an election to get elected to the ‘post’ for the ‘salary’ on offer. The benefits attendant on becoming a member of the House may be attractive and worthwhile. But that was no reason for any candidate to stand in the elections to represent and serve his constituency. His representation to the voter was totally different and, therefore, this court was not inclined to equate the services of a MLA or MP and the emoluments received or paid as akin to salaries earned by a government employee.
The two were different and distinct even if the nomenclature runs as ‘salaries’, being paid to the member of the House. Even the members of the House may not like to suggest that they became MLA or MP to ‘make a living’. Unlike a government servant, who joins employment for livelihood and thus dependent on the salary paid for his services, a memb er of the House will not belittle his position for the economic benefit available while occupying the seat.
Even members of the House may deem it to be demeaning to the larger purpose of public service they have in mind when they stand in elections to represent the people of the country, the judge added.
The judge said by no stretch of imagination the member of the House was an employee. If at all, they can claim to be employee of people. “In a case, where the member is disqualified and his candidature itself goes, all the benefits he had by such election are not due to him at all. It was not salary paid for any services rendered, but compensation given to him for the time spared to serve the cause of the people. It is a recognition by ‘We the People’ to keep the member of the House compensated for sparing his time for public service.
It is not a public employment the member of the House sought and obtained. If that be so, it does not sound good for the member to impugn the order seeking refund of the emoluments received by him as member of the House. Persons like the petitioner ought to be more than willing to refund such emoluments which they are held to be not entitled to due to their disqualification”, the judge added.
‘Fighting polls is not to earn living, but to serve people’
To become a member of the House is not given to any and many. Only a select few are given the privilege. Fighting elections in India does not come easy. In such a scenario, the political class must realize that they are fighting elections not to earn a living like a candidate seeking public employment, but they were entering the arena of public service to serve the cause of the people whom they seek to represent.
There is inevitable and unavoidable sacrifice involved and extensive mobility and work attendant to serve as a member of House. But the expectation of the member of the House is not the salary that he is entitled to. They get paid emoluments to give them the comfort to be able to devote more time for public interest.
Viewed thus, this court is not inclined to accept the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner to set aside the orders seeking refund of the salaries and allowances paid to the petitioner.
