Case: Umrao Singh Vs. Darbara Singh &amp; Ors

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 Samitis or any other local authority or Government. 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 1/2 rate if he was charged either for board or for lodging. It appears that, in the year 1965, 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 Rule 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 Court 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 duties. 7. So far as rules 4 to 7 are concerned they 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. Clearly, these allowances are also meant to ensure that he does 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 that 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 journeys in order to discharge his official duties. 8. Our attention was drawn by learned counsel to the fact that in Rule 7 the persons entitled to daily allowance are divided into two categories and a Chairman of a Panchayat Samiti belonging to Category I is entitled to Rs. 6 per diem when a Member of the Samiti belonging to Category II is only entitled to Rs.4 per diem. The argument was that there was no explanation for payment at a higher rate to the Chairman and, consequently, it must be held that the Chairman must be making a gain out of the payment to him of daily allowance. We are unable to accept this submission. The daily allowance is invariably fixed 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. In any case, such a payment is clearly meant only to cover additional expenditure and out-of-pocket expenses of the Chairman and, while no evidence has been advanced to show that out of the amount received as daily allowance the Chairman will in fact invariably make a saving, it cannot be held that this payment would result in gain so as to make the office an office of profit. 9. In the course of his submissions, learned counsel tried to urge that the payment of travelling allowance and daily allowance under 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 must necessarily result in profit to the payee. The argument proceeds on a complete misunderstanding of the Rules. 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 govern cases where the journey is performed outside the district. Rule 3 and Rules 4 to 7 are, therefore, complementary and exclusive of each other. In fact, Rule 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 the 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 Rule 3. The submission that the payment under Rules 4 to 7 is in addition to the payment under R. 3 is, thus, clearly misconceived. 10. In this connection, learned counsel drew our attention to a decision of this Court in Ravan Subanna v. G. S. Kaggeerappa, AIR 1954 SC 653 at p. 656 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 in 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.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]We consider that this appeal can be disposed of on the basis of the answer 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 of Chairman of a Panchayat Samiti into an office of profit7. So far as rules 4 to 7 are concerned they 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. Clearly, these allowances are also meant to ensure that he does 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 that 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 journeys in order to discharge his official duties9. In the course of his submissions, learned counsel tried to urge that the payment of travelling allowance and daily allowance under 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 must necessarily result in profit to the payee. The argument proceeds on a complete misunderstanding of the Rules. 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 govern cases where the journey is performed outside the district. Rule 3 and Rules 4 to 7 are, therefore, complementary and exclusive of each other. In fact, Rule 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 the 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 Rule 3. The submission that the payment under Rules 4 to 7 is in addition to the payment under R. 3 is, thus, clearly misconceivedThis 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 in 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.