LexUMRAO SINGH versus DARBARA SINGH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
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 Samiti- paid 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 per- forming 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 con- solidated 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 mem- ber 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 candid
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.