Office of profit under Government requires real pecuniary gain; advisory committee chairmanship with nominal fee did not disqualify.

The Supreme Court of India construed "office of profit" under Government as an office carrying pay, salary, emoluments, allowance or other pecuniary gain. A Chairman of a Taluk Development Committee was treated as holding only an advisory position with no executive duties, and the sitting fee received was regarded as reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses rather than remuneration or profit. The Court also held that inclusion of an office in the statutory schedule did not by itself make it an office of profit if no real pecuniary advantage attached. The appellant therefore did not hold an office of profit and was not disqualified from election as a councillor.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant held an office of profit under the Government so as to attract disqualification under Section 14 of the Mysore Town Municipalities Act, 1951.

Analysis: The expression "office of profit" was construed to mean an office under Government carrying pay, salary, emoluments, allowance, or other pecuniary gain. The Chairman of the Taluk Development Committee was part of an advisory body, had no executive duties, and received only a fee of Rs. 6 per sitting, which was treated as a consolidated payment for out-of-pocket expenses rather than remuneration or profit. The exemption in the Mysore Legislature (Prevention of Disqualifications) Act, 1951 was held not to mean that every office mentioned in its schedule must necessarily be an office of profit, irrespective of whether any profit was actually attached to it.

Conclusion: The appellant did not hold an office of profit under the Government and was not disqualified from being elected as a councillor.

---