ANOKH SINGH versus PUNJAB STATE ELECTION COMMISSION

Citation: [2010] 13 S.C.R. 455 · Decided: 29-10-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B. SUDERSHAN REDDY · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 455 
ANOKH SINGH 
v. 
PUNJAB STATE ELECTION COMMISSION 
(Civil Appeal No. 9485 of 2010 etc.) 
OCTOBER 29, 2010 
[B.SUDERSHAN REDOY AND SURINDER SINGH 
NIJJAR, JJ.] 
. Election Laws: 
A 
B 
c 
Elections to Panchayat Samitis .and Zita Parishads -
Lambardards in State of Punjab - Eligibility of to contest the 
elections - Circular No. SEC-200814365 dated 30.4.2008 
issued by the State Election Commissioner, Punjab clarifying 
that Lambardars and Anganwari workers held "office of profit" 
D 
and, therefore, were ineligible to contest the elections - HELD: 
With the abolition of land revenue by Punjab Government, 
Lambardar would not receive any remuneration as 10% of 
land revenue cess but receives an honorarium which is 
merely compensatory to meet the out of pocket expenses for 
E 
attending his duties -
There is nothing to show that the 
honorarium received by Lambardar is not compensatory in 
nature - High Court has quashed the Circular in relation to 
Anganwari workers - For the same reason the Circular could 
not be sustained and is set aside qua the Lambardars also -
State Election Commissioner, Punjab, Circular SEC-20081 
F 
. 4365 dated 30.4. 2008. 
Words and Phrases: 
'Honorarium', 'Office of profit' in the context of election 
G 
laws - Connotation of. 
The Memorandum No. SEC-200814365 dated 
30.4.2008 issued by the State Election Commissioner, 
455 
H 
456 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A Punjab to the Deputy Commissioners-cum-District 
Election Officers in the State clarifying that Lambardars 
and Anganwari workers held "office of profit" and, thus, 
were ineligible to contest elections to Panchayat Samitis 
and Zila Parishads, was challenged in the writ petitions 
B before the High Court. The High Court allowed the writ 
petitions of the Anganwadi workers but dismissed the 
writ petition as regards the Lambardar. Aggrieved, the 
appellant-Lambardar filed the appeal. 
c 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Since the Lambardar is not holding any 
post under the Government, no salary is payable to him. 
There is no pay scale attached to the office of Lambardar. 
Therefore, it cannot be said that he is in receipt of any 
D remuneration. [para 17] [466-B] 
Mahavir Singh Vs. Khiali Ram & Ors. 2008 (17) SCR 534 
=2009 (3) sec 439 - relied on. 
Som Lal Vs. Vijay Laxmi & Ors. 2008 (5) SCR 49 = 2008 
E (11) SCC 413; and Maulana Abdul Shakoor Vs. Rikhab 
Chand and Anr 1958 SCR 387 =AIR 1958 SC 52 - referred 
and Shivamurlhy lnamdar Vs. Agadi Sanganna Andanappa 
(1971) 3 sec 870 - referred to. 
F 
1.2 Under the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, the 
Lambardar was receiving village officer's cess equal to 
ten percent of the land revenue assessed on the estate 
or the portion of the estate in which .he holds office, 
whether the assessment is levied or not. However, with 
G the abolition of land revenue by the Punjab Government, 
the Lambardar has no land revenue to collect, and, thus, 
he would not receive any remuneration as 10% of the 
land revenue assessed, the percentage of cess has been 
replaced by an honorarium. Currently, the Lambardar 
H receives Rs.9001-
per month, which is merely 
ANOKH SINGH v. PUNJAB STATE ELECTION 
457 
COMMISSION 
compensatory to meet the out of pocket expenses, 
A 
incurred in the performance of his duties. [para 19-20] 
(469-E-H; 470-A-B] 
1.3 The High Court erred in rejecting the submission 
that the honorarium received by the Lambardar would not 
B 
fall within the ambit of the term 'office of profit'. Tile High 
Court has erroneously distinguished the observat~ons of 
this Court in the case of Shivamurthy Swami lnamda,r*. The 
tests laid down in the said case would be rele~ant to 
determine whether a particular office is an office 1under 
the Government. It would be essential to determine C 
whether it would be necessary for the person holding an 
office under the Government to incur any expenditure in 
performance of the functions. These matters would then 
have to be correlated to any honorarium, allowance. or 
stipend that may be attached to the office. Witho.ut D 
examining any of these issues, the conclusion of t~e 
High Court that the honorarium received by the 
Lambardar is not compensatory in nature, cannot be 
endorsed. [para 21-22] (471-B-H; 472-A-D] 
Shivamurthy Swami lnamdar Vs. Veerabhadrappa 
Veerappa (1971) 3 SCC 870 - referred to. 
1.4 It would be apparent from the facts that though 
the Lambardar may not be holding a civil p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.