MPs are not eligible for hike whatsoever. They are liable for disqualification.
A discussion is being carried out on the proposed hike of MPs’ salary and perks. Are they eligible?
First of all we must define who are these MPs?
ARE THESE MPS PUBLIC SERVANT?
There could be two Answers. Yes or No.
If no, then who are they?
Are they on contract?
There could be two answers. Yes or No.
Then the persons who are on contract, they are entitled for an amount of payment specified in the contract condition. No amount can be modified without negotiation with every tenderer and without the concurrence of the sanctioning authority of the contract. The tender has to be re-floated.
The process of election is the floating of a tender. The constitution is a tender contract. The party’s Election manifesto is the scope of work. The tender associated with scope of work gets approved under the evaluation of the election results.
Say, in 1952 the tender of the Contractor was Indian Nehruvian Congress (INC) was approved.
In 1954, the INC introduced a modification that his staff as well as the staff of the other parties whose candidates were elected, since they are also guiding us and making efforts to correct us, we want to make some payment at a fix interval and we call it Salary. Further since they have to remain in touch with the voters of their geographical area, we want to provide them monetary reimbursement through some system.
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
The constitution of India provides the executive power to the contractor to utilize the public fund for works related to the welfare of the public. Since the constitution has been passed by the elected team of the constitution assembly, the team, while constituting the constitution, had also authorized the contractor to make some changes in view of the welfare of the public with 2/3 of the elected members, barring the changes related with human rights and natural rights.
This clearly indicates that even unanimously, the human rights and natural rights of the public cannot be curtailed or restricted by the 2/3 of the MPs.
How a party to the contract does get approved?
It is based on the choice preferred by the public, based on the election manifesto of the contesting parties.
Was there a point forming a part of election manifesto for giving periodical salary to MPs, in the 1952 election?
Did this point of salary form a part of election manifesto of Indian Nehruvian Congress?
No. To pay the so called salary to the MPs by the public was not forming a part of any parties’ manifesto in any election manifesto. The MPs are the staff of the Contractor. The MPs may get the payment from their party’s fund. Public fund is not for MPs.
The executive team (Cabinet Ministry) of the contractor is already getting the salary from the public fund. Besides this the laborers (Secretarial teams) too, has been provided to help the contractor. The payment to this team is also made from the public fund. No further payment can be made to the Contractor from public fund.
The contractor cannot of his own entitle himself for supplementary payment to his advisory staff or whatsoever, without consulting the public who had approved the work contract through a system.
This means that the constitutional amendment carried out in 1954 is a breach of constitution. That is, all such acts of constitutional amendments are breach of Constitution.
Somebody may say it is OK. But the said breach of contract was not challenged by the public in the court of law. And in the subsequent election, the same party tendered his contracting manifesto. The public approved the same contractor. Hence the amendment made to the constitution can be treated as post facto approval.
Can the said amendment be taken a post facto approval?
The answer could be Yes, or No.
If the answer is No, the matter ends.
Suppose, the answer is Yes.
Then it should have been made a part of the election manifesto, when the tender floated for the next term.
But it is observed that the contractors took the disadvantage of the ignorance and good faith of the public. In no election manifesto, the hike in the payment was forming a part of the election manifesto. To not link the quality and completion of the work with the payment, is a defective work contract agreement.
In fact any payable amount has to be linked with successful completion of the work and its quality. Any hike in payment without the prior permission of the public, it becomes the breach of human right.
Now suppose the Contractor says, since in a previous term of contract you did not raise objection, we want hike in the payment to the MP in this term of the contract.
What is wrong?
In fact, in the absence of the provision of hike in the manifesto, the payment cannot be made. If any payment is made in past, it can be recovered.
WHAT IS CONTRACT?
Any payment made against the specified delivery of the work, is a contract.
Neither the contractor nor its staff can withdraw any amount for its own personal benefit, without the prior permission of the public. The contract is liable for termination, since it is the violation of contractual discipline.
When a citizen contributes to raise public fund, the citizen has a right to deny of such payment. Or in other word, we can say that a verdict must be obtained from the public for such hike. If there is no system, then any law, ordering the hike becomes null and void. This is just comparable to the “Right to Information Act. Any demand of information was being denied before 2005.
THERE IS ANOTHER POINT.
Who is the political party? Is it an agent? Or is it a local arrangement made by the elected persons among themselves and by themselves?
To whom the public elect? Party or person?
Public elects a candidate. Public does not elect a party. The existence of a party is the local arrangement of the candidates or elected persons or whatsoever. Public is not concern with this.
Several candidates come to the public in a constituency with their own proposal (election manifesto). It is not mandatory for the public of a constituency to know where the manifesto is printed, how is it printed, who has prepared the text of the manifesto …. etc. Public would like to go through the manifesto. Public would be taken deemed to have read the manifestos and voted to a candidate. The contents of the manifesto would be taken as the scope of work. What is written would deem to have been read. What is not written would not be taken as written.
Hence any elected candidate has to abide by the contents of election manifesto. The elected candidate does not abide by any point what is not forming a part of the content of its election manifesto.
Hence no elected candidate e.g. MP can vote in favor of any proposal of hike. If the elected person would vote in favor of the hike, he would be liable to be disqualified on the ground of breach of trust and breach of human rights.
Suppose I have engaged a person to supervise certain specified works viz. work to monitor and take disciplinary action. I have already employed the laborers. I have signed a written contract with him. Suppose I gave him Rs. 100,000/- of which as per the contract he can take Rs. 1000/- for his personal expenses. I have also allowed him to do other jobs too which hitherto he was doing for his personal livelihood. Now suppose he takes 2000/- rupees of his own for himself without consulting me during the period of validity of the contract. Would it be not a breach of contract? Yes. Definitely it is a breach of contract. It is my right to decide the payable amount to him. It is my natural right. Nobody can deny this.
Now, suppose the MP is a public servant.
Every servant has to perform specified duties. If he lacks in his duties or fails in the duties say monitoring the works of permanent servants like Clerks, supervisor, engineers, physicians, managers, planners, directors, experts, consultants, interpreters, laborers and all those.
The elected person has to monitor and to see the results are obtained. He has been also authorized the take disciplinary actions against the persons holding top posts, if the employees hlding top posts fails to take disciplinary actions to their subordinate staff or fail in bringing the results.
Now this person, who has been engaged for monitoring and for taking disciplinary actions, says, he too is an employee. Now suppose he has been considered as an employee, how does the employee himself can make any hike in his salary? This is against fundamental rules of services whatsoever.
The election system is a process of selection of a monitor cum controller of the work. The election system does not decide the scope of works of the five year contract. The scope of work is the manifesto given by the candidate. If the manifesto is silent on such emoluments, then the monitor/project controller cannot entitle himself for any hike.
If the service rules and disciplinary rules are not applied on the MPs, then the provision of pensions to the MPs, too cannot be applied.
Unless the duties and responsibilities are specified, the rights of any entitlement of emoluments cannot be availed by the MPs (inclusive of all elected persons).
The Court of Law should pass and order to recover the payment made to MPs hitherto. If they fail to pay back the amount, their property should be seized. As for their breach of contract and breach of trust, they should be prosecuted. While the court takes it own course to finalize the prosecution, the MPs should remain in jail.
The MPs inclusive of all the elected members cannot be treated en-par with public servant. This is because they are allowed to do their own personal job, whereas the Public Servants are not allowed to do other job. If the MPs want any pension they can have their own pension scheme which is available for a common mass. The expenditure incurred by them in public interest should be reimbursed on submission of the valid vouchers.
MPs/Parties cannot be allowed to submit any bill before the parliament, the draft which had not formed the part of their election manifesto. If the ruling party want to submit such bill it should get the draft of the bill circulated through public notice three months in advance asking public to submit amendment within 15 days, and thereafter the party can revise the draft with proper justification in favor or against of each suggestion thus received. Then the party may revise the draft of the bill. The verdict of the people can be taken through ballet in Yes/No.
Under external threat only the party should be allowed to take urgent action without calling the verdict
Shirish M. Dave
Tags; Public servant, public fund, party fund, contract, service conditions, service rules, disciplinary rules, fundamental service rules, pension, welfare of public, constitution, breach of human rights, breach of trust, breach contract, null and void, MP, elected candidate, election system, evaluation of tender, selection