# UMRAOSINGH v. DARBARA SINGH & ORS

- **Citation:** [1969] 1 S.C.R. 421
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1968-07-25
- **Bench:** J. C. Shah, V. Bhargava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/umraosingh-v-darbara-singh-ors-4479
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art. 191-Chairman of Panchayat
Samitipaid allowances to cover expenses an panchayat work under rules framed
by State Govern.1nent-if an office of profit under the Government.
The appellant who was defeated by the first respondent in the General
Election of 1967 to the Punjab Vidhan Sabha, challenged the latter's
election on the ground that he was disqualified from being chosen as a
member of the Assembly because he was holding an office of profit under
the State Government at the relevant time.
It was admitted that the
respcmdent was the Chairman of a Panchayat Samiti and il was contende<l;
by the appellant that the allowances paid to the Chairman under Rules
3 to 7 of the Punjab Panchayat Samilis and Zila Parishads, Non-Official
Members (Payntent of Allowances) Rules, 1965, made that office an
office of profit. The High Court dismissed that election petition and on
appeal to this Court,
HELD : The High Court came to a correct conclusion in holding
that the allowances paid under Rules 3 to 7 did not convert the office of
Chairman of Panchayat Samiti into an office of profit.
The payment to a Chairman under r. 3 is desCribed in the rule as a
monthly consolidated allowance in lieu of all other
allowances for performing all official duties and journeys concerning the Panchayat Samiti
within the district.
This provision clearly shows that the allowance paid
is not salary, remuneration or honorarium but an allowance paid for the
purpose of ensuring that the Chairman of a Panchayat Samiti does not
have to ·spend money out of his own pocket for the discharge of his
duties.
The burden which lay on the appellant to show that the allo-
\vance of Rs. 100/ - per month was excessive and was not required to
compensate the Chairman for his actual expenses had not been discharged.
(426 F-G, 427 B.C]
Rules 4 to 7 only provide for payment of travelling allowance and
daily allowance when a Chairman performs a journey in connection with
his official duties outside the district.
There is again no evidence from
which it could be inferred that the amount received by a Chairman was
in. excoss of his actual expenditure. (427 H.428 BJ
There o/as no force in the contention that the payment of travelling
allowance under Rules 3 to 7 was in addition to the payment of the consolidated monthly allowance under Rule 3 and payment of two sets of
allowarrces must necessarily result in profit to the payee.
Rule 3 only
covers payment to compensate a Chairman for journeys performed by
him for his official duties within the district in which the Panchayat is
situated, while '.rules 4 to 7 g-overn cases where the journey is performed'
outside the district. (428 F-GJ
Ravanna Subanna v. G. S_ Kaggeerappa, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 653 at p.
656; distinguished.

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
421
UMRAOSINGH
v.
DARBARA SINGH & ORS.
July 25, 1968
[J. C. SHAH AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.J
Constitution of India, Art. 191-Chairman of Panchayat
Samitipaid allowances to cover expenses an panchayat work under rules framed
by State Govern.1nent-if an office of profit under the Government.
The appellant who was defeated by the first respondent in the General
Election of 1967 to the Punjab Vidhan Sabha, challenged the latter's
election on the ground that he was disqualified from being chosen as a
member of the Assembly because he was holding an office of profit under
the State Government at the relevant time.
It was admitted that the
respcmdent was the Chairman of a Panchayat Samiti and il was contende<l;
by the appellant that the allowances paid to the Chairman under Rules
3 to 7 of the Punjab Panchayat Samilis and Zila Parishads, Non-Official
Members (Payntent of Allowances) Rules, 1965, made that office an
office of profit. The High Court dismissed that election petition and on
appeal to this Court,
HELD : The High Court came to a correct conclusion in holding
that the allowances paid under Rules 3 to 7 did not convert the office of
Chairman of Panchayat Samiti into an office of profit.
The payment to a Chairman under r. 3 is desCribed in the rule as a
monthly consolidated allowance in lieu of all other
allowances for performing all official duties and journeys concerning the Panchayat Samiti
within the district.
This provision clearly shows that the allowance paid
is not salary, remuneration or honorarium but an allowance paid for the
purpose of ensuring that the Chairman of a Panchayat Samiti does not
have to ·spend money out of his own pocket for the discharge of his
duties.
The burden which lay on the appellant to show that the allo-
\vance of Rs. 100/ - per month was excessive and was not required to
compensate the Chairman for his actual expenses had not been discharged.
(426 F-G, 427 B.C]
Rules 4 to 7 only provide for payment of travelling allowance and
daily allowance when a Chairman performs a journey in connection with
his official duties outside the district.
There is again no evidence from
which it could be inferred that the amount received by a Chairman was
in. excoss of his actual expenditure. (427 H.428 BJ
There o/as no force in the contention that the payment of travelling
allowance under Rules 3 to 7 was in addition to the payment of the consolidated monthly allowance under Rule 3 and payment of two sets of
allowarrces must necessarily result in profit to the payee.
Rule 3 only
covers payment to compensate a Chairman for journeys performed by
him for his official duties within the district in which the Panchayat is
situated, while '.rules 4 to 7 g-overn cases where the journey is performed'
outside the district. (428 F-GJ
Ravanna Subanna v. G. S_ Kaggeerappa, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 653 at p.
656; distinguished.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1707 of
1967.
422
SCPREME COURT REPORTS
[1969] t S.C.R.
Appeal under SC(;tion 116-A of the Representation of. the
People Act, 1951 from the judgment and order dated September
19, 1967 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Election
Petition No. 28 of 196 7.
Hardev Singh, I'. Parme~wara Rao and S. S. Klwnduja,
for
the appellant
R. K. Garg, S. C. Agam·a/a, Ba/dev Sing/1 Klwji and Anil
Kumar Gupta, for respondent No. I.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Bhargava, J. The appellant, who was defeated by respondent
No. I (hereinafter referred to as "'the respondent"), the successful
candidate, in the General Election of 1967 lo the Punjab Vidhan
Sabha from Nakodar Constituency, District Jullundur, challenged
the election of the respondent in an election petition inter alia on
the ground that he was disqualified from being chosen as a member of the Assembly, because he was holding an .office of profit
under the Stale Government at the relevant time.
This was the
only ground which was pressed at the trial of the election petition
be.fore the High Court of Punjab and llaryana at Chandigarh.
The High Court dismissed the election
petition
rejecting
this
contention of the appellant and, conscqucnlty, the appellant has
come up to this Court in this appeal under section 116A of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Admillcdly, the respondent was the Chairman of a Panchayal
Samiti and the ground that he was disqualified
from
being a
candidate was based on Rules 3 to 7 of the Punjab Panchayat
Samitis and Zila Parishads, Non-official Members (Payment
of
Allowances) Rules, 1965 (hereinaf1er referred to as "the Rules")
which arc as follows :-
"3. There shall be paid a monthly consolidated allowance, in lieu of all other allowances, at the following
rates. 10 the Chairman of a J>anchavat Samiti and that
of a Zila Parishad, for performing all oflicial duties and
journeys concerning the Panchayat
Samitis
or
Zila
Parishad as the case may be, within
the districl, including attending of meeting, supervision
of
plans,
projects, schemes and other works :ind also for the discharge of all lawful obligations and implcmmtation of
Government directives :-
(a) Chairman, Panchayat Samiti
.. Rs. I 00
( b) Chairn1an, Zila Parishad
. . Rs. 150
4. The Chairmen, Vice-Chainnen
and Members
shall, for the purpose of rates of mileage and daily allowance admissible to them under these rules, he divided
into the following two calcgories :-
A
B
c
D
E
F
..
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
..
G
H
UMRAO v. DARBARA (Bhargava, J.)
( i) Category I-This shall include Chairmen and
Vice-Chairmen of the Panchayat Samitis and
Zila Parishads.
(ii) Category II-This shall include ali other Members of the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads.
5. There shall be paid to the Chairman,
ViceChairman and Meniber, mileage allowance for journeys
performed
for any official work outside the district.
Such journeys shall not be undertaken unless authorised
by the Panchayat Samiti or the Zila Parishad, as . the
case may be.
Note :-The Power under this sub-rule shall not
be delegated to any other authority.
(2) The Vice-Chairman and the Member shall also
be paid mileage allowance, in respect of a journey performed within the district, for-
( a) attending the meetings; and
(b) for any official work or for supervision of a cattle
fair held by the Panchayat Samiti :
Provided that the Vice-Chairman and the Members
shall not be entitled to mileage allowance under
clause (b) unless the journey for such work or supervisjpn has been approved by the Panchayat Samiti or
Zila Parishad, as the case may be, and the number of
Members deputed for supervision does not exceed five
on any one day.
6. The payment of mileage allowance to a Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members for the purposes and
journeys mentioned in rule 5 shaJI be regulated as
follows:-
(i) Mileage allowance by rail.-For a journey between the stations connected by rail, the Chairman and Vice-Chairman shalJ be entided to
travel by 1st Class and the Members by 2nd
Class.
The Chairman, Vice-Chairman and the
Members shall be entitled to draw single fare of
the Class of accommodation to which
he
is
entitled :
Provided that if the journey is performed in lower
class, the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members shall
423
424
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1969] ! S.C.R.
be entitled to the fare actually paid for that class.
(ii) Mileage allowance' by bus.-For a journey between the places connected by road, where regular bus service
plies, and also
for a journey
between the stations connected by rail but per·
formed
by bus by taking a single
seat,
the
Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members shall
be paid lhc fare actually paid.
(iii) Mileage allowance for journeys
between
the
stations partly connected by rail and partly by
bus.-For a journey between
stations
partly
connected by rail and pmtly hy bus. the Chairman. Vice-Chairman and Members shall be paid
actual railway fare limited to the class of accommodation to which he i1 entitled and the bus
fare actually paid.
(iv) Mileage allowance by road.-(a) The mileage
allowance by road shall be admissible, at the
rates specified below. for the journeys performed by the Chairman. Vice-Chairman or MemIA:rs between stations which arc neither connected by rail nor by regular bus :-
Motor Cycle or
&:ootcr
OrdinJry cycle
Other nicans of convcyancc
A
B
c
D
I~ Paisc per n1ilc
9 P;ti!)C per n~iii.:
E
(b) If a Chairman,
Vice-Chairman
or Member
performs a journey by
Motor Cycle, Scooter.
Ordinary Cycle or by other means of conveyance
between the stations connected by rail or regular
bus, the miJeage allowance calculated at the rates
F
prescribed above for each kind of conveyance
shall be limited to rail or bus fare, had the journey been performed by rail or bus as the case
may be.
Kotes.-( I) A
Chairman,
Vice-Chairman
or
Member, using mean> of locomotion provided at the
G
expense of
tl1e Government, Panchayat Samiti, Zila
Parishad or any other ~ocal authority shall not
be
entitled to any mileage allowance.
(2) A
Chainnan,
Vice-Chairman or Member
travelling in a vehicle belonging to any other Member,
Vice-Chairman or Chairman shall not be entitled to
H
any mileage allowance.
111e mileage allowance of the
owner of the vehicle shall, however, be regulated under
clause (iv).
A
B
c
-
D
E
F
..
G
H
UMRAO v. DARBARA (Bhargava, J.)
7. Subject to the provisions of rule 3, -(1) the
daily allowance to a
Chairman, Vice-Chairman and
Members shall be admissible at the following rates :-
Category I
. . Rs. 6.00 per day.
Category II
. . Rs. 4.00 per day.
(2) A Chainnan, Vice-Chairman, or Member
shall be allowed :-
(a) fnll daily allowance for the day he attends the
meeting;
(b) full daily allowance for the days of halt in case
· the halt is for any of the purposes specified in
rule 5 above;
(c) half daily allowance for the day of departure
and half-daily allowance for the day of arrival
in connection with a journey performed for any
of the purposes specified in rule 5 :
Provided that-
( i) in the case of a Chairman, Vice-Chairman or
Member who is treated as a State guest while
attending the meeting or while on duty within
or outside the district his daily allowance for
such days shall be limited to one-fourth if he is
provided with free board and lodging and to one
half, if he is charged either for board or for
lodging;
(ii) not more than one daily allowance shall be admissible for a day in any case.
(iii) a Chaimrnn, Vice-Chairman or Member may,
at his option draw one daily allowance in lieu
of mileage allowance plus half daily allpwance
for the day of journey preceding and following
the day(s) of halt."
It was alleged that the office of Chairman of a Panchayat Samiti
was an office under the State Government of Punjab .and that the
allowances paid under th.ese Rules made that office an office of
profit.
Two ~uestions, therefore, arose for decision.
The first
was whether the payment of the allowances nnder rules 3 to 7
made the office of Chainnan of Panchayat Samiti an office of
profit, and the second was whether the office of Chairman of
Panchayat Samiti was an office under the State Government.
The learned Judge trying the election petition recorded evidence in the trial of the petition up'to 31st July, 1967, and adjourned the case for arguments to 21st August, 1967. On 19th
426
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1969] J SC.R.
August, 1967, however, the Governor of Punjab issued Ordinance
A
No. 10 of 1967 to amend the State Legislature (Prevention of
Disqualification) Act, 1952, so as to add section 2 (b)
in that
Act as follows :-
"It is hereby further declared that
the office
of
Chainnan of a Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad shall
be deemed never to have disqualified and shall not disqualify the holder thereof for being chosen as, or for
being, a Member of the Punjab State Legislature."
In view of the issue of this Ordinance, the appellant was allowed
to challenge the validity of the Ordinance without amendment of
the election petition, and the learned Judge trying the petition,
being of the view that the various questions involved were of considerable importance and should be settled by a larger Bench,
referred the petition to a Full Bench.
The Full Bench he.Id on
the first two questions agai11st the appellant, so that the petition
had to be dismissed on that ground. Consequently, the Full Bench
refrained from expressing any opinion on the third quC6tion relating to the validity of the Ordinance and passed an order dismissing
the petiticn1 with costs.
In this appeal also, the same three questions have been again
raised by the appellant. We consider that this appeal can be disposed of on the basis of the amwer to the first question alone,
because, in our opinion, the High Court came to a correct conclusion in holding that the allowances paid under rules 3 to 7 of the
Rules did not convert the office cl Chairman of a Panchayat
Samiti into an office of profit.
The payment to a Chairn1an, Panchayat Samiti, under r. 3
is described in tile rule as a monthly consolidated allowance in
lieu of all other allowances for performing all official duties and
journeys concerning the Panchayat Samiti within the district, including attending of meetings, supervision of
pla11s,
projects.
schemes and other works, and also for tile discharge of all lawful
obligations and in1plcmentation of Government directiws.
This
provision in very clear language shows that the allowance paid
is not salary, remuneration or honorarium.
It is clearly an allowance paid for the purpose of ensuring that tile Chairman of a
Panchayat Samiti docs not have to spend money out of his own
pocket for the discharge of. his duties. It envisag~ that, in .Pe.rforming the duties. tile Chaim1an must und~rtakc iourncys w1thm
the district and must be incurring expenditure when
attending
meetings, supervising plans, projects, schemes and other w~rks
and also in connection with the discharge of other lawful obhgaticms and implementation of Government directives. No evidence
has been led on behalf of tile appellant to show that a Chairman
of a Panchayat Samiti does not have to perform such journey'
B
c
D
E
F
G
ff
-
A
B
c
D
E
F
..
G
H
UMRAO V. DARBARA (Bhargava, J.)
421
in the course of his official duties and to incur expenditure in that
connection.
The State Government, which was the competent
authority, fixed the allowance for a Chairman of a Panchayat
Samiti at Rs. 100 I - per month, obviously because iJ was of the
opinion that this sum will be required on an average every month
to meet the expenses which the Chairman will have to incur in
this connection. In these circumstances, the burden lay on the
appellant to give evidence on the basis of which a definite find;ng
could have been arrived at that the amount of Rs. 100/ · per
month was excessive and was not required to compensate the
Chairman for the eXPenses to be incurred by him in the discharge
of his official duties as envisaged in the rule. That burden clearly
has not been even attempted to be discharged by the appellant.
In this connection, the High Court rightly compared rule 3.
of the Rules with the earlier provision on the same subject contained in the Punjab Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Non·
Official Members (Payment of Allowances) Rules, 1961. U_nder
those earlier Rules of 1961, the Chairman was entitled to draw
travelling allowance and daily allowance even when travelling
within the district.
There were, however,
certain limitations,
such as that no travelling allowance was to be drawn by a Member, if the journey was performed for attending a meeting held
within a radius of five miles from his place of residence or he
performed the journey in a transport provided at the expense of
the Zila Parishads/Panchayat Sarnitis or any other local authority
or Goverrunent. There were also limitations on the right to draw
daily allowance, e.g., the amount of daily allowance was to be
limited to 1/ 4th of the rate provided, if the Chairman was provided free board and lodging officially and at t rate if he was
charged either for board or for lodging. It appears that in the year
19(15, it was considered desirable that the Chairman of a Panchayat Samiti should not draw travelling allowance and daily allowance while performing duties within the district and should only
be entitled to these allowances when required to travel outside the·
district.
Consequently, under r. 3 of the Rules, provision was
made for this monthly allowance of Rs. 100/ - as a consolidated
amount in lieu of the travelling allowance, daily allowance, or any
other allowances to which he might have been entitled in order to
compensate him for expenses incurred in connection with the·
discharge of his official duties.
In these circumstances, the High
Comt was perfectly correct in arriving at the conclusion that this
allowance of Rs. 100/. per month did not amount to receipt of
any profit or gain by the Chairman and only represented the
amount which he was expected to spend on an average every
month for the purpose of properly discharging his official duti\ls.
So far as rules 4 to 7 are concerned they only provide for payment of travelling allowance and daily al!9wance when a Chair-
-428
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1969] I S.C.R
man porfom1s a journey in connection with his
official
duties
outside the district.
Clearly, these allowances arc also meant to
ensure that he docs not have to incur expenditure from his own
pocket for the purpose of discharging his official duties.
There
is again no evidence from which an inference may be drawn thal
the amount received by a Chairman for travelling allowance or
daily allowance is in excess of the amount of expenditure which
he would have to incur for ·the purpose of performing the .iourneys
in order to discharge his otlicial duties.
Our attention was drawn by ]earned counsel to the fact that
in rule 7 the persons entitled to daily allowance arc divided into
lwo categories and a Chaimrnn of a Panchayat Sarniti bclongin~ to
Category I is entitled to Rs. 6/- per diem when a Member of th~
Samiti belonging 10 Category JI is only entitled
to Rs. 4/- per
diem.
The argument was that there was no exphination for payment at a higher rate to the Chairman and, consequently. it must
be held that the Chairman must be making a g-ain out of the payment to him of daily allowance.
We arc unable to accept thi'
submission. The daily allowance is invariably fi.\ed after estimating what extra expenditure in a day the person concerned would
have to incur.
A Chairman, it appears. was expected to incur
more expenditure per day than a Member. and that seems to be
the reason why a higher rate of daily allowance was prescribed for
him. Jn any case. such a payment is clearly meant only to cover
additional expenditure and out-of-pocket expense., of the Chainn:•n
and, while no evidence has been advanced to show that out of the
amount received as daily allowance 1he Chai1111an
will in fact
invariably make a saying, it cannot be held that this
payment
would result in gain so as to make the oflice an office of profit.
In the course of his submissions. ]earned counsel tried to ur~e
1hat tllc payment of travelling a!lowance and daily allowance undCr
rules 3 to 7 was in addition to the payment of the consolidated
monthly allowance under r. 3 and payment of two sets of allowances mw;t necessarily result in profit to Ihe payee. The ar~ument
proceeds on a complete misunderstanding of the Rules.
Rule 3
only covers payment to compensate a Chainnan for journeys perfom1ed by him for his official duties within the district in which the
Panchayat is situated, while rules 4 to 7 ~overn cases whecc the
journey is performed outside the district.
Rule 3, and rules 4 to
I arc, therefore, complementary and exclusive of each other.
Jn
fact, r. 5 makes it clear that the mileage allowance is admissible
only for journeys undertaken outside the district. while. in respect
of daily allowance. the fact that the right to receive it accrues only
when tllc journey is outside the district is made manifest by laying
down that the receipt of this daily allowance is to be subject to the
provisions of r. 3.
The submission that the payment under rule'
A
n
c
D
E
F
G
H
B
·C
iD
•
UMRAO v. DARBARA (Bhargava, !.)
429
4 to 7 is in addition to the paymen't under r. 3 is, thus, clearly
misconceived.
In this connection, learned counsel drew our attention to a
decision of this Court in Ravanna Subanna v.
G. S. Kaggeerappa ( 1) where dealing with the provision relating to this disqualification the Court held :
"The plain meaning of the expression seems to be
that an office must be held under Government to which
any pay, salary, emoluments or allowance is attached.
The word "profit" connotes the idea of pecuniary gain_
If there is really a gain, its quantum or amount would
not be material; but the amount of money receivable by
a person in connection with the office he holds may be
material in deciding whether the office really carries any
profit."
This principle, on the finding arrived at by the High Court and
affirmed by us above, is of no assistance to the appellant. It is
clear that the appellant has failed to establish that the allowances
payable under rules 3 to 7 of the Rules result in any pecuniary
gain to a Chairman of a Panchayat Samiti and, consequently, there
is no question of any disqualification arising.
The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
R.K.P.S.
Appeal dismissed .
(I) A.LR. 1954 S.C. 653 at p, 656.
Ll2Sup. C. J.168-13