'Lambardar' not an office of profit: SC

The apex court passed the ruling while quashing a Punjab government's "incongruous" circular which had held that a "lambardar" cannot contest panchayat election as his post was considered to be an "office of profit", though he/she was eligible to contest assembly election.

"Being a member of panchayat can be the beginning of a long career in public life. Therefore, the disqualification introduced though the impugned circular could prove disastrous to democracy at the grassroots level in Punjab," a bench of Justices B Sudershan Reddy and S S Nijjar said in a judgement.

Anokh Singh, a lambardar, had challenged the Punjab government circular(Memo No. SEC-2008/4365) restraining the holders of such hereditary posts from contesting the elections.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the circular, following which he appealed in the apex court.

The apex court rejected the state government's argument that exemption from being called an `office of profit' granted to the office of lambardar under the Punjab State Legislature (Prevention of Disqualification ) Act, 1952, applies only in the case of election to state legislative assembly and not in case of election as a member of panchayat.
"We need not consider the effect of Section 2(a) of the Punjab State Legislature (Prevention of disqualifications) Act, 1952, on Section 11(g) of the State Election Commission Act. By virtue of the aforesaid Act, a lambardar would be qualified to contest the elections for legislative assembly.

"This could be a stepping stone for becoming the Chief Minister of the state. Therefore, it would seem a little incongruous that a lambardar would not be permitted to seek election to panchayat. The village-level democracy is the bedrock of Indian National Democracy," Justice Nijjar writing the judgement said

The apex court found fault with the High Court quashing the same circular with regard to anganwadi workers who were also barred by the state government from contesting panchayat polls.

"In our opinion, for the same reasons the circular could not be sustained in the case of lambardars also.

"But we need not go into controversy as we have already held that the office of a lambardar would not be an office of profit", the Bench said.

The apex court said the conclusion reached by the High Court that receipt of Rs.900/- is not compensatory and hence amounted to "office of profit" cannot be accepted.
"It would be preposterous to accept, in this day and age, that a sum of Rs.900/- per month would be sufficient to cover the out-of-pocket expenses of a lambardar," the Bench said.

According to the Bench, an office of Lambardar is merely a hereditary post whose incumbent was paid an honorarium of Rs.900/- per month with no other remuneration, emolument, perquisite or facilities.

"The logic behind paying such payment is that he does not have to spend money out of his own pocket while discharging his duties.

"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 remuneration," the Bench said. The apex court said even though the office of Lambardar is regarded as a mere relic in this day and age, it still carries with it certain important duties which are to be performed by the incumbent.
"Although purely `honourary', being a Lambardar gives the incumbent a certain status in the village. In some cases, the office of Lambardar has been in the same families for generations. For them, it becomes a matter of honour and prestige that the office remains in the family.

"Therefore, some families would cherish the office of Lambardar even though the incumbent does not get any salary, emoluments or perquisites. In our opinion, the very basis of issuing the circular was non- existent and misconceived," the Bench said.