The Vice-President s Pension Act, 1997
🏛️ Objective of the Act
The main purpose of the Act is to:
Provide pension and post-retirement benefits to former Vice-Presidents of India.
Maintain the status and dignity of the office of the Vice-President even after the term is over.
Ensure parity with similar laws applicable to other high constitutional functionaries, like the President and Prime Minister.
📜 Key Provisions of the Vice-President’s Pension Act, 1997
1. Pension to Vice-President (Section 2)
Every person who has held the office of Vice-President is entitled to receive a monthly pension.
The amount of pension is equal to 50% of the salary that the Vice-President was entitled to while in office.
Example:
If the Vice-President’s salary was ₹4,00,000 per month during his term, the pension would be ₹2,00,000 per month.
2. Other Benefits (Section 3)
The former Vice-President is also entitled to:
Free furnished residence (without rent),
Secretarial staff, as determined by the Central Government,
Travel facilities, including free railway travel and air travel allowances,
Medical facilities under the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS).
These facilities are provided for life, unless otherwise modified by the government.
3. Pension in Case of Multiple Terms
If a person has held the office of Vice-President more than once, he is entitled to pension for only one term, and not separately for each term.
4. Cessation or Modification of Benefits (Section 4)
If a former Vice-President:
Accepts any other office of profit, or
Becomes re-employed under the Central or State Government,
then:
His pension or allowances may be reduced or suspended, depending on the nature and salary of the new post.
This is to prevent double benefits from public funds.
5. Power to Make Rules (Section 5)
The Central Government has the power to frame rules for:
The conditions under which pension or benefits may be granted,
The extent of services, facilities, or allowances,
Procedures for disbursement and record keeping.
🧾 Important Case Law (Relevant to the Act)
While the Vice-President’s Pension Act, 1997 itself has not been the subject of many court cases, related principles can be found in public office and pension-related jurisprudence.
1. DS Nakara v. Union of India (1983)
Supreme Court Landmark Case
Facts: This case was related to pension benefits for civil servants and whether different pension schemes for different retirement dates were discriminatory.
Held:
Pension is not a bounty, but a right attached to the past service of the retiree.
The Court held that pensioners form a homogeneous class, and the government must treat them equally.
Relevance:
The principle that pension is a right applies equally to the Vice-President’s pension.
The benefits cannot be arbitrarily withdrawn or denied once earned.
2. Union of India v. SPS Vains (2008)
Facts: Issue of unequal pension for officers who retired at different times.
Held:
The Supreme Court again reiterated that there should be no discrimination among pensioners based on retirement date.
Relevance:
Former Vice-Presidents cannot be given different pension amounts arbitrarily based on when they served.
💰 Current Status (as per general practice)
Though the exact amount may be revised by the Central Government from time to time, as of current policy:
The Vice-President draws a salary of around ₹4 lakh/month, hence pension is around ₹2 lakh/month.
The facilities and allowances continue post-retirement, including security, staff, car, travel, etc.
📌 Important Notes
The Act is relatively brief and straightforward, given the limited number of people it applies to (one person at a time).
The administration of benefits is typically done by the Ministry of Home Affairs or the Rajya Sabha Secretariat, since the Vice-President is the ex-officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.
The pension is charged on the Consolidated Fund of India, meaning it is not subject to annual budget voting.
✅ Conclusion
The Vice-President’s Pension Act, 1997 reflects India’s commitment to maintaining the dignity and welfare of its constitutional dignitaries. While it does not attract frequent legal challenges due to its limited applicability, it is an important symbol of respect and continuity for public service at the highest level
RELATED Blog
0 comments