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

2. Admittedly, the respondent was the Chairman of a Panchayat Samiti, and the ground that he was disqualified from being a candidate was based on Rules 3 to 7 of the Punjab Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads, Non-official Members (Payment of Allowances) Rules, 19653. 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 August, 1967, however, the Governor of Punjab issued Ordinance 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 Chairman 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 held on the first two questions against 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 question relating to the validity of the Ordinance and passed an order dismissing the petition with costs.      4. In this appeal also, the same three questions have been again raised by the appellant

Reasoning: 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.