JUDGMENT W. Broome, J. - Panna Lal, the petitioner in the case, challenge the decision of the Additional S.D.O., Meerut, in an election petition under Section 12-C of the Panchayat Raj Act, setting aside his election as Pradhan of a certain Gaon Sabha. 2. The petitioner's election has been set aside on the ground that his nomination paper was improperly accepted, because he was disqualified from being chosen as Pradhan by reason of the fact that he held an office of profit under the Government, being as officer in the National Cadet Corps. The petitioner, who is a physical training instructor in the Modi Science and Commerce Intermediate College, Modinagar, admittedly holds the post of second officer in the N.C.C. Junior Division of that College; and it is for the admitted that he receives the sum of Rs. 35/- per month as honorarium in connection with his work as a Cadet Corps Officer. It is contended, however, that such a post does not constitute an "office of profit" under the State Government, the Central Government or any local authority, so as to operate as a disqualification under Section 5-A of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. 3. The words "office of profit" have not been defined in the Act and their interpretation is not free from difficulty. There can be little doubt that a National Cadet Corps Officer holds an office under the Central Government, for he is commissioned by the Government of India (vide Rule 21(5) of the National Cadet Corps Rules, 1948), can be dismissed by the Defence Secretary (vide rule 40(1) and is liable to perform all the duties assigned by the Central Government under Sections 9 and 10 of the National Cadet Corps Act, 1948. The question arises, however, whether this office can be described as an office of profit. 4. The following extracts from Rules 35 and 36 of the National Cadet Corps Rules, 1948, set forth the provisions relating to the pay and allowances of Junior Division Cadet Corps Officers:- "35. Pay, -(2) Every Officer commissioned in the National Cadet Corps and posted to a unit of the Junior Division shall be entitled for periods of actual attendance at authorised courses of instruction in Army schools, and with Army units, including intervening Sundays and holidays to such pay as is specified in Schedule II. Pay, -(2) Every Officer commissioned in the National Cadet Corps and posted to a unit of the Junior Division shall be entitled for periods of actual attendance at authorised courses of instruction in Army schools, and with Army units, including intervening Sundays and holidays to such pay as is specified in Schedule II. (3) Every Officer commissioned in the National Cadet Corps and posted to a unit of the Junior Division shall be entitled to receive at the end of the training year an honorarium as specified in Schedule II on condition that he has attended the annual training camp of his unit in such a training year. 36. Allowances -(1) Every officer.....of the Senior and Junior Division posted or appointed to a unit or part thereof shall be entitled to such allowances as are specified in Schedule II. Form theses Rules (read with Schedule II) it appears that a Junior Division Officer is entitled firstly to pay (ranging between Rs. 130/- and Rs. 290/- per month) for periods of actual attendance at authorised courses of instruction in Army schools and with Army units, secondly to an honorarium (ranging between Rs. 90/- and Rs. 250/-) at the end of the training year if he has attended the annual training camp in such year, and thirdly to an allowance (Rs. 5/- per day) for every day of actual attendance at the annual training camp, provided he lives, messes and sleeps in camp. 5. Every kind of pay or allowance, however, will not convert an office into an office of profit. In Ravanna Subanna v. G.S. Kaggeerappa A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 653 the question arose whether the Chairman of a Taluk Development Committee could be said to hold an office of profit, so as to disqualify him from being elected as Councillor under the Mysore Town Municipalities Act. The rules relating to Taluk Development Committees provided no regular salary for the Chairman but entitled him to receive a fee of Rs. 6/- for each sitting he attended; and the Supreme Court held that this fee "is not meant to be a payment by way of remuneration or profit, but it is given to him as a consolidated fee for the out-of-pocket expenses which he has to incur for attending the meetings of the Committee." 6. 6/- for each sitting he attended; and the Supreme Court held that this fee "is not meant to be a payment by way of remuneration or profit, but it is given to him as a consolidated fee for the out-of-pocket expenses which he has to incur for attending the meetings of the Committee." 6. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner in the present case is that the payments received by him as Cadet Corps, Officer are not by way of remuneration or profit but are mere allowances granted to the petitioner in order to compensate him and cover his expenses while he is attending Army courses or the annual training camp. The fact that these payments are conditional on attendance at the courses or the camp shows that they are not on a par with an ordinary salary and cannot be treated as plain remuneration for services rendered by the petitioner. He may perform all the duties assigned to him as Cadet Corps Officer and still will not be entitled to draw his honorarium or daily allowance if he fails to attend the annual training camp; and the monthly pay he will get only when he attends Army courses, i.e. for receiving instruction, not for performing duties or rendering services. 7. The distinction drawn appears to be valid and I agree that the amounts to which the petitioner is entitled under rules 35 and 36 cannot be equated with remuneration or profit, since they are not paid in return for services, rendered. The pay drawn under Rule 35(2) is for receiving instruction and is more analogous to be stipend paid to a scholarship holder than to the salary paid to an employee. And the honorarium and allowance drawn under Rules 35(3) and 36(1), which are given for attending training camp, are presumably meant to compensate and cover expenses incurred by the officer in that connexion. 8. My conclusion therefore is that the post held by the petitioner as officer in the N.C.C. Junior Division is not an office of profit and does not disqualify him from being chosen as Pradhan under Section 5-A of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. This petition is accordingly allowed with costs, the impugned order of the Additional S.D.O. dated 25.8.1962 being quashed.