Once an MLA, enjoy life forever
5 years in the chair vs 60 years in the job
Dr. Satyawan Saurabh
In a nation that prides itself on the democratic principle of “of the people, by the people, for the people,” the stark disparity in pension benefits between ordinary citizens and elected representatives raises profound questions about fairness and equality. Dr. Satyawan Saurabh poignantly captures this injustice: “A man works for 60 years but still has to wander around for a pension, while a leader enjoys lifelong benefits after just five years in office!” This glaring inequity, where a single term as a Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) or Member of Parliament (MP) guarantees a lifelong pension, contrasts sharply with the struggles of millions of workers—farmers, teachers, nurses, and clerks—who toil for decades without similar security. Is this the equality promised by the Indian Constitution?
The issue has reached a tipping point, as evidenced by petitions like that of Sardar Singh Johal, which have escalated to the Supreme Court. For the ordinary citizen—whether sweating in fields, teaching in classrooms, saving lives in hospitals, or managing files in government offices—securing a pension remains a relentless struggle. These workers dedicate their lives to nation-building, yet their retirement often brings financial insecurity. Conversely, a politician who serves a single five-year term, even without attending a single legislative session, is entitled to a lifelong pension funded by the public exchequer. This system rewards position over contribution, undermining the very principles of justice and equality.
The absurdity deepens when we consider that many politicians, after serving a single term, never contest elections again yet continue to draw pensions indefinitely. Imagine the outcry if a clerk were granted a pension after just one year of service—the Finance Ministry would be in an uproar! Yet, when it comes to elected representatives, logic and fairness seem to vanish. The pension system for politicians operates without scrutiny, accountability, or performance evaluation. It is a privilege granted solely for occupying a chair, regardless of the quality or impact of their service.
In 2018, an attempt was made to address this disparity through the Pension Reform Act, which aimed to rationalize the pension system for public representatives. However, the act’s implementation has been superficial at best. Rules remain unenforced, and accountability is nonexistent. Unlike employees, whose pensions are tied to years of service, contributions, and evaluations, politicians’ pensions require only a single oath of office. This lack of oversight perpetuates a system that prioritizes power over merit.
The question is not why politicians receive pensions but why ordinary citizens who dedicate their lives to service do not enjoy similar benefits. Millions of contractual workers—guest teachers, Anganwadi workers, contract doctors, nurses, and sanitation workers—labor tirelessly without the promise of retirement security. Their contributions are no less vital than those of elected officials, yet they are excluded from the pension system. Meanwhile, politicians enjoy not only pensions but also allowances, vehicles, bungalows, and security during and after their tenure. Under the New Pension Scheme (NPS), government employees must contribute their own money, often through EMIs, to secure a pension, while politicians face no such requirement. This double standard is a blatant violation of fairness.
The pension system for politicians makes a mockery of democracy. Elected representatives, who position themselves as public servants, often prioritize power and privilege over service. Even after their terms end, they continue to reap the benefits of their brief tenure. Many remain in politics, not out of commitment to public welfare, but because of the financial security provided by pensions. This system transcends ideology—whether left, right, or center, all former legislators are entitled to the same benefits, with no deductions, no performance metrics, and no accountability. Is this the equality we envisioned?
The solution is clear: either extend pension benefits to all workers or abolish them for politicians. If a five-year term as an MLA qualifies for a lifelong pension, why should a teacher, farmer, or nurse who serves for decades be denied the same? Farmers feed the nation, teachers shape its future, and healthcare workers save lives—yet their contributions are undervalued. A fair system would either guarantee pensions for all who serve or eliminate special privileges for politicians until universal pension coverage is achieved.
The Supreme Court’s intervention in cases like Sardar Singh Johal’s petition offers a glimmer of hope. The demand is simple: either abolish politicians’ pensions or apply the same rules as those for employees. A swift, historic decision could restore faith in the principle of equality enshrined in the Constitution. This is not a political issue but a matter of social justice. The current system insults the spirit of democracy by favoring a privileged class while millions struggle for basic financial security in retirement.
The public must act to end this inequality. Silence will only perpetuate the status quo. Employees, youth, teachers’ unions, doctors’ organizations, and citizens must unite to demand change. This issue must resonate in every village, town, and university. The power of the vote can drive reform, but only if the public raises its voice. Every employee organization and civil society group must rally behind a single demand: “Pensions for all, or for none!” Only through collective action can we dismantle a system that rewards power over service and restore the promise of equality for all.
(Note: Dr. Satyawan Saurabh, Poet, Freelance Journalist, and Columnist, 333, Fairy Garden, Kaushalya Bhawan, Barwa (Siwani), Bhiwani, Haryana – 127045)
