Case: Chet Ram Vs. Jit Singh

3. The fact of the matter is being noticed from Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 1610 of 2005.Indisputably, while working as Gramin Dak Sewak, appellant contested in an election for membership of Nagar Panchayat Sardulgarh held on 9.03.2003.Respondent No. 1 filed an election petition in terms of Sections 76, 79 and 89 of the Act and Rule 87 of the Punjab Municipal Election Rules, 1994 before the Election Tribunal. However, upon receipt of notice, appellant submitted his resignation.We must, however, place on record that Harnek Singh, appellant in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 7276 of 2005, was chargesheeted for participating in politics.4. Contention of appellant that he was not a government employee having been working on part time basis and, thus, was not disqualified in terms of Section 11(g) of the Act was rejected by the Tribunal by reason of its judgment and order dated 25.08.2004 inter alia holding that having regard to the provisions of Rule 22(4) of the Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sewak (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001 (for short "the Rules") he stood disqualified.5. An appeal was preferred thereagainst which was marked as FAO No. 4305 of 2004. By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Courtappellant is a part time employee of the post office under the Central Government, outside regular civil service. Nonetheless, he is holding this post under the Government and he is also entitled to protection under Article 311 of the Constitution, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Rajammas case (supra) and other judgments. He is also getting remuneration by way of salary. He is appointed by and paid by Central Government and is under direct control of the Central Government. Case of Madhukar G.E. Pankakar (supra) relating to Insurance Medical practitioner appointed under the provisions of ESI Act is different. In the said case, the employee was not being paid directly by the Government nor was control of the Government direct, as observed in para 40 of the judgment. In the present case, position is different. The appellant was, thus, rightly held to be disqualified from contestingis, thus, before

Reasoning: 12. We think that this contention is correct. We agree with the High Court that for holding an office of profit under the Government, one need not be in the service of Government and there need be no relationship of master and servant between them. The Constitution itself makes a distinction between `the holder of an office of profit under the Government and `the holder of a post or service under the Government; see Articles 309 and 314. The Constitution has also made a distinction between `the holder of an office of profit under the Government and `the holder of an office of profit under a local or other authority subject to the control of Government; see Articles 58(2) and 66(4). In Maulana Abdul Shakur v. Rishab Chand the appellant was the manager of a school run by a committee of management formed under the provisions of the Durgah Khwaja Saheb Act, 1955. He was appointed by the administrator of the Durgah and was paid Rs 100 per month. The question arose whether he was disqualified to be chosen as a member of Parliament in view of Article 102(1)(a) of the Constitution. It was contended for the respondent in that case that under Sections 5 and 9 of the Durgah Khwaja Saheb Act, 1955 the Government of India had the power of appointment and removal of members of the committee of management as also the power to appoint the administrator in consultation with the committee; therefore the appellant was under the control and supervision of the Government and that therefore he was holding an office of profit under the Government of India. This contention was repelled and this Court pointed out the distinction between `the holder of an office of profit Government and `the holder of an office of profit under some other authority subject to the control of Government. Mr Chaudhuri has contended before us that the decision is in his favour. He has argued that the appellant in the present case holds an office of profit under the Durgapur Projects Ltd. and the Hindustan Steel Ltd. which are incorporated under the Indian Companies Act; the fact that the Comptroller and Auditor-General or even the Government of India exercises some control does not make the appellant any the less a holder of office under the two companies. We do not think that this line of argument isalso Pradyut Bordoloi v. Swapan Roy (2001) 2 SCC 19 ]Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India [(2006) 5 SCC 266]  was another case, where a similar question arose for consideration. It wasClause (1)(a) of Article 102 provides that a person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament if he holds any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State, other than an office declared by Parliament by law not to disqualify its holder. The term "holds an office of profit" though not defined, has been the subject-matter of interpretation, in several decisions of this Court. An office of profit is an office which is capable of yielding a profit or pecuniary gain. Holding an office under the Central or State Government, to which some pay, salary, emolument, remuneration or non-compensatory allowance is attached, is "holding an office of profit". The question whether a person holds an office of profit is required to be interpreted in a realistic manner. Nature of the payment must be considered as a matter of substance rather than of form. Nomenclature is not important. In fact, mere use of the word "honorarium" cannot take the payment out of the purview of profit, if there is pecuniary gain for the recipient. Payment of honorarium, in addition to daily allowances in the nature of compensatory allowances, rent free accommodation and chauffeur driven car at State expense, are clearly in the nature of remuneration and a source of pecuniary gain and hence constitute profit. For deciding the question as to whether one is holding an office of profit or not, what is relevant is whether the office is capable of yielding a profit or pecuniary gain and not whether the person actually obtained a monetary gain. If the "pecuniary gain" is "receivable" in connection with the office then it becomes an office of profit, irrespective of whether such pecuniary gain is actually received or not. If the office carries with it, or entitles the holder to, any pecuniary gain other than reimbursement of out of pocket/actual expenses, then the office will be an office of profit for the purpose of Article 102(1)(a). This position of law stands settled for over half a century commencing from the decisions of Ravanna Subanna v. G.S. Kaggeerappa, Shivamurthy Swami Inamdar v. Agadi Sanganna Andanappa, Satrucharla Chandrasekhar Raju v. Vyricherla Pradeep Kumar Dev and Shibu Soren v. Dayanand Sahay.In Union of India and Others v. Kameshwar Prasad [(1997) 11 SCC 650] , it wasThe Extra Departmental Agents system in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs is in vogue since 1854. The object underlying it is to cater to postal needs of the rural communities dispersed in remote areas. The system avails of the services of schoolmasters, shopkeepers, landlords and such other persons in a village who have the faculty of reasonable standard of literacy and adequate means of livelihood and who, therefore, in their leisure can assist the Department by way of gainful avocation and social service in ministering to the rural communities in their postal needs, through maintenance of simple accounts and adherence to minimum procedural formalities, as prescribed by the Department for the purpose. [See: Swamys Compilation of Service Rules for Extra Departmental Staff in Postal Department p. 1.]3. The Extra Departmental Agents are government servants holding a civil post and are entitled to the protection of Article 311(2) of the Constitution (See: Supdt. of Post Offices v. P.K. Rajamma). They are governed by separate set of rules, viz., the Posts and Telegraphs Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). The Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules are not applicable to this category of employees in view of the notification dated 28-2-1957 issued by the Government of India under Rule 3(3) of the said