JUDGMENT V. P. Bbatnagar, J.—This judgment is meant to dispose of Election Petitions Nos. 1 and 2 of 1990, since both these petitions involve determination of similar questions of facts and law. The petitions were consolidated by an order of this Court made on July 25, 1990 to that effect The proceedings were then directed to be recorded in Election Petition No. 2 of 1990. 2. It is the election of Shri Moti Ram respondent to the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly from 60-Chachiot Assembly Constituency in the elections held during February 1990 which stands challenged in both petitions. The main ground of challenge is that the nomination paper of Shri Karam Singh was improperly rejected by the Returning Officer by his order dated February 7, 1990. The provisions of section 100 (1) (o) of the Representation of the People Ace, 1951 (for short the Act) have, therefore, been invoked and a declaration sought that the election of the returned candidate, namely, Shri Moti Ram be declared to be void. 3. Shri Moti Ram respondent raised a number of preliminary objections. It led to the framing of following preliminary issues :— 1. Whether copies of the petitions served upon the respondent in Election Petitions 1 and 2 of 1990 are not the true copies of the respective petitions and the provisions of section 81 (3) have not been complied with? If so, effect thereof. O. P. R. 2. Whether Shri Karam Singh. Shri Shiv Lal and the State Government are necessary parties ? If so, its effect. O. P. R. 3. Whether the petitions and annexures attached thereto are neither signed nor verified in the manner laid down in C. P. C ? If so, its effect- O. P. R. The above issues were decided against the respondent by order dated December 13, 1990. The following issues were thereafter framed on merits:— 1. Whether the nomination of Shri Karam Singh has been improperly rejected, as alleged ? If so, its effect. O. P. P. 2. Relief. Issue No. 1 4. The facts in this case are not disputed. The date of filing nomination papers was February 2, 1990. The Returning Officer was to scrutinise the Domination papers on February 5, 1990, the date fixed for scrutiny. Shri Karam Singh was one of 15 persons who filed nomination papers. O. P. P. 2. Relief. Issue No. 1 4. The facts in this case are not disputed. The date of filing nomination papers was February 2, 1990. The Returning Officer was to scrutinise the Domination papers on February 5, 1990, the date fixed for scrutiny. Shri Karam Singh was one of 15 persons who filed nomination papers. On the day fixed for scrutiny, Shri Bhagat Ram, Advocate, duly authorised by Shri Vir Singh, objected to the nomination papers of Shri Karam Singh on the ground that he was holding an office of profit within the ambit of Article 191 (1) (a) of the Constitution and was, therefore, dis- qualified for being chosen as, and for being, a Member of the Legislative Assembly. This fact was noticed by the Returning Officer Shri Ashok Ranjan Basu, who has stepped into the witness box as RW 5, in his order dated February 5, 1990 at Ex. R-4. Shri Karam Singh was not present before him but his proposer Shri Mani Ram, Advocate, was. Shri Mani Ram was requested to ensure the appearance of the candidate before the Returning Officer on February 6, 1990 at 11 a. m. for hearing him in connection with the objections- Letter Ex. R-5 was also delivered lo Shri Mani Ram in the matter. The Returning Officer also directed Tehsildar (Elections) to enquire from the Secretary, Himachal Pradesh Khadi and Village Industries Board, about the remuneration and other allowances being drawn by Shri Karam Sihgh in his capacity as Chairman of the Board. His report dated February 7, 1990, placed before the Returning Officer is brief and may be usefully reproduced per verbatim: "It has been enquired on telephone by the undersigned today from the Secretary, H. P. Khadi Board, Shimla that Shri Karam Singh as Chairman of the Board has been drawing a sum of Rs. 1,500 as salary with facility of vehicle, accommodation and T. A. and D. A. when on tour. Shri Mani Ram, Advocate (proposer of the candidate) submitted the following reply (Ex. R-7) to the Returning Officer on February 6, 1990 :— "Sh. Karam Singh who was Chairman of Village and Khadi Board has resigned from the Chairmanship on 29th or 30th January, 1990. The acceptance of the resignation is not known. Sh. Karam Singh. By his order dated February 7, 1990 at Ex. R-7) to the Returning Officer on February 6, 1990 :— "Sh. Karam Singh who was Chairman of Village and Khadi Board has resigned from the Chairmanship on 29th or 30th January, 1990. The acceptance of the resignation is not known. Sh. Karam Singh. By his order dated February 7, 1990 at Ex. P-10 the Returning Officer rejected the nomination paper of Shri Karam Singh on the ground that Shri Karam Singh is holding an office of profit in his capacity as Chairman of the Himachal Pradesh Khadi and Village Industries Board and is, therefore, ineligible to contest the elections. He noticed In his order that Shri Karam Singh has been drawing a salary of Rs. 1,500 per month besides other facilities of vehicle, accommodation and T. A. and D. A. etc. and that his resignation was not accepted till February 5, 1990. 5. It is also not disputed that Shri Karam Singh was appointed Member as also Chairman of the Himachal Pradesh Khadi and Village Industries Board vide notification dated December 27, 1986 at Ex. P-11 till further orders by the State Government. His term of office was extend-ed upto December 26, 1990 vide notification dated December 20, 1989 at Ex. P-l3. Byway of letter dated March 30, 1978 at Ex P-19, it was ordered that the word pay’ used for the office of Chairman would be read as honorarium/compensation. However, vide notification dated October 27, 1987 at Ex. R-3 it was provided that the Chairman shall be entitled to remuneration of Rs 1,500 p. m. (consolidated). On October 18 1989 Shri Karam Singh wrote letter Ex, P-31 to the Government stating that he did not intend to draw the monthly remuneration of Rs, 1,500 from the Board. The reason given in this letter was the upward revision of Shri Karam Singhs pension for having served as Member of the Legislative Assembly to Rs. 2,400 p. m. with effect from February 4, 1989 The remuneration of Rs. 1,500 as Chairman was adjustable against the pension of Rs. 2,400 and the balance amount as pension which Shri Karam Singh could draw came to Rs 900 per mensem. 2,400 p. m. with effect from February 4, 1989 The remuneration of Rs. 1,500 as Chairman was adjustable against the pension of Rs. 2,400 and the balance amount as pension which Shri Karam Singh could draw came to Rs 900 per mensem. He, therefore, decided to draw his full pension and instead give up his remuneration of Rs 1,500 from the H. P. Khadi and village Industries Board His request was accepted by the Government of Himachal Pradesh which issued notification dated January 8, 1990 at Ex P-30 to the effect that the Governor of Himachal Pradesh was pleased to order that Shri Karam Singh would cease to draw the remuneration of Rs. 1,500 p. m. (consolidated) being given to him as Chairman, Himachal Pradesh Khadi and Village Industries Board as per his own request made in his letter dated October 18, 19b9. Shri Karam Singh, as a result of this notification, refunded a sum of Rs 1 161 vide Receipt dated March 22, 1990 at Ex. P-27 being the remuneration drawn by him for the period from January 8, 1990 to January 31, 1990 at the rate of Rs. 1,500. 6. As stated above, the last date of filing nomination papers was February 2, 1990. Shri Karam Singh, on January 31, 19*0, addressed a letter of resignation to the Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Industries) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, stating that "1 hereby resign from the membership and Chairmanship of the Himachal Pradesh Khadi and Village Industries Board. The resignation may kindly be accepted with effect from today i.e. 31st January, J990". This letter is at Ex P-5 Another copy of this letter has also been exhibited in the other rf ction petition as Ex. P-6. At Ex. P-32 is the photostat copy of the Notin Por tion which portrays the exact manner in which the abovementioned resignation was dealt with by the State Government. The resignation was put up by the dealing Assistant on the day of submission itself Deputy Secretary (Ind.) appended a note on that very day (31-1-1990) that "We may accept the resignation of Thakur Karam Singh, Chairman H P Khadi Board. Approval of C. M is solicited please". The file was then put up to the then Financial Commissioner (Ind ), Shri M. S Mukherjee (PW3). He also cleared the file on 31-1-1990 itself with the observation. Approval of C. M is solicited please". The file was then put up to the then Financial Commissioner (Ind ), Shri M. S Mukherjee (PW3). He also cleared the file on 31-1-1990 itself with the observation. He wants his resignation to be effective from today. Hence the urgency" It appears that the file had to be sent to the Chief Minister through the Minister of State (Ind.) who happened to be out of Shimla. The file was therefore, directly submitted to the Chief Minister who appended his signatures on 4-2-1990, thus approving the action suggested by Shri M S Mukherjee. The file took some time in travelling back to Shri Mukherjee who wrote the following note on 12-2-1990:- “Please issue the notification today accepting the resignation with immediate effect and thereafter, please submit the file to MOS (Ind.) for his kind information." This resulted in the issuance of the notification dated February 12, 1990 at Ex. P-15 by which the resignation was accepted with immediate effect. It is on the above facts, which are not disputed, that the Court is required to determine whether Shri Karam Singh held his office on February 5, 1990 (the day of scrutiny) or if he would be deemed to have relinquished his office on January 31, 19vO itself. It has been contended by Shri Indar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners, that Shri Karam Singh resigned with effect from January 31, 1990 vide his letter Ex. P-5 and that the said letter takes effect from the date, January j15 1990 itself His contention is that the Chief Minister also ordered its acceptance with effect from January 31, B9D though his signatures were appended on February 4, 1990, The resignation having been notified on February 12, 1990, so the argument runs, is of no significance It has been forcefully urged by him that the notification at Ex. P-15 is unauthorised and unwarranted by law. 7. In my view the above contention has to be accepted. 8. Shri Karam Singh was appointed Chairman of the Himachal Pradesh Khadi and Village Industries Board under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Khadi and Village Industries Board Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Khadi Act. It is, therefore, necessary to advert to the relevant provisions of the Khadi Act, particularly relating to the constitution of the Board and appointment of its Chairman. It is, therefore, necessary to advert to the relevant provisions of the Khadi Act, particularly relating to the constitution of the Board and appointment of its Chairman. Khadi Act is meant to provide for the establisment of Board for the development of Khadi and Village Industries in the State of Himachal Pradesh and for matters connected therewith. Under section 3 thereof, the Board was to be established by the Government of Himachal Pradesh by way of a notification in the official Gazette and it was to be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal, with power to acquire, hold and dispose of property and to contract and to sue and be sued by the name "Himachal Pradesh Khadi and Village Industries Board". Section 4 pertains to the Constitution of the Board. The Board has to be manned by non-officials as also officials and shall consist of not less than three and not more than nine members appointed by the State Government after consultation with the Khadi and Village Industries Commission established under section 4 of the Khadi and Village Industries Commission Act^ 1956 (6i of 1950). The Government of Himachal Pradesh has been empowered, after consultation with the aforesaid Commission, to nominate one of the Members of the Board to be the Chairman who shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be prescribed by Rules made under the Khadi Act Section 11 incorporates the term of office and conditions of service inter aha of the Chairman. These shall be such as may be prescribed under the Rules. Rules are to be framed under section 35 of the Khadi Act by the Government of Himachal Pradesh by notification in the official Gazette. "Chairman" means the Chairman of the Board, as defined under section 2 (c) of the Khadi Act Section 2 (f) defines "Member" as meaning a Member of the Board. In other words, Member wherever appearing in the body of the Khadi Act or the Rules framed thereunder has to refer to a Member of the Board as distinguished from its Chairman. As stated above, Chairman of the Board has to be appointed out of its Members. Therefore, a Chairman would necessarily be a Member of the Board as well. 9. As stated above, Chairman of the Board has to be appointed out of its Members. Therefore, a Chairman would necessarily be a Member of the Board as well. 9. Coming to the Himachal Pradesh Khadi and Village Industries Board Rules, 1966 (for short, Khadi Rules) it is significant to note that the term of office, disqualifications for membership of the Board and removal from the Board provided under Rules 3, 4 and 5 thereof respectively pertain to the Members of the Board and not its Chairman. Similar situation is obtainable in section 7 of the Khadi Act, which reads : - “7. Resignation of office by members.—Any member may resign, his office by giving notice in writing to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and, on such resignation being notified in the official Gazette by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, shall be deemed to have vacated his office." Shri M. L. Sharma, learned Counsel for the returned candidate has strenuously and very ably argued so as to apply the provisions of section 7 of the Khadi Act to the office of the Chairman which Shri Karam Singh was indisputably occupying on January 31, 1990. There can be no manner of doubt that if this contention of Shri Sharma is accepted Shri Karam Singh would be deemed to have vacated his office on February 12, 1990, the day his resignation was notified in the official Gazette and the petitioners thereby would be deprived of any benefit as a result of the letter of resignation dated January 31, 1990 at Ex. P-5 read with the noting portion dealing with the said resignation at Ex. P-32. 10. The provisions of Khadi Act, when read as a whole, are clearly indicative of the fact that the Legislature used the word Member’ where the intention was to enact law relating to Member’ only. The definition of the word ‘Member’ also clearly restricts its meaning to Member alone and the word Chairman has been separately defined to mean Chairman of the Board Wherever the Legislature wanted to apply some provision to Chairman and a Member both, it specifically said so. For instance, section 11 of the Khadi Act reads as follows : — "11. The definition of the word ‘Member’ also clearly restricts its meaning to Member alone and the word Chairman has been separately defined to mean Chairman of the Board Wherever the Legislature wanted to apply some provision to Chairman and a Member both, it specifically said so. For instance, section 11 of the Khadi Act reads as follows : — "11. Term of office and conditions of service of the Chairman Vice-Chairman, Secretary and other members.—The term of office and the terms and conditions of service of the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Secretary and other members shall be such as may be prescribed." It would, therefore, tantamount to violating the express intention of the Legislature to hold that section 7 of the Khadi Act governs resignation of office by Chairman of the Board. The net result of the above discussion is that the Khadi Act is silent and contains no provisions as to how and in what manner the resignation of a Chairman has to be accepted. 11. Of course, the relationship between Chairman of the Khadi and Village Industries Board and the Government of Himachal Pradesh has to be in the nature of a contract and it is implicit that the provisions of Kbadi Act and Rules made thereunder, as far as applicable, would also govern the said contract. Cumulatively, if the terms and conditions of the said contract are silent with respect to the mode of tendering and accepting resignation from the office of Chairman, as is the case, the holder thereof can bring his appointment to an end by resigning with effect from a particular date He would then be deemed to have ceased to be a Chairman from that date itself, notwithstanding its acceptance on a later date. This is because it cannot be said that he is bound to continue to work till the acceptance of his resignation unless the terms and conditions of .his appointment contain a clear stipulation to that effect. 12 I am fortified in the above conclusion by a Judgment dated February 2, 1990 by a learned Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C. W. P. No. 1276/90, Anand Singh Dangi v. The State of Haryana and others. It is a short judgment and runs as follows :— "The facts of this case are short and simple. It is a short judgment and runs as follows :— "The facts of this case are short and simple. The petitioner was appointed as a Chairman of the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana vide Government Notification dated 25-64987, copy Annexure P-1. He submitted his resignation, copy Annexure P-4, on 29-1-1990 and requested the State Government to accept the same immediately i e., today positively. This was so requested because he wanted to contest a by-election being held to the State assembly from Meham constituency. Before the State Government could take any final decision on this he filed the present petition saying that though with the submission of the resignation he ceases to be in the employment of the Government yet the Government is not accepting his resignation for the reason that the State Chief Minister intends to contest the election from this very constituency and probably wants to keep him out of the arena. This latter mentioned factual position is seriously contested on behalf of the respondents with the plea that though the Chief Minister is a candidate from this constituency yet the attribution of any mala fide or any motive to him as suggested is totally baseless It is further pleaded that as a matter of fact the resignation of the petitioner was being processed at the time when he filed the present petition . Another objection raised is that the petitioner is not entitled to seek either a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to accept the resignation or a mere declaration that he is no more in service after tendering the resignation. It is, however, conceded that the petitioner has already file his nomination papers for the above noted election and the scrutiny of the same has to take place on 5-2-1990. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties at some length we are of the opinion that in the given facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner deserves the last mentioned relief i.e. a declaration that with the submission of his resignation (Annexure P-4) he is no more in the service of the State Government. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties at some length we are of the opinion that in the given facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner deserves the last mentioned relief i.e. a declaration that with the submission of his resignation (Annexure P-4) he is no more in the service of the State Government. We formulate this opinion for the reason that every employment with the State Government is the result of a contract entered into between the employee and the employer and in the absence of a specific rule or condition laying down the procedure for resigning or getting out of service the employee may uni laterally break the contract of service. By this he may however expose himself to various civil and criminal consequences. For this proposition we also seek reliance on Smt. Aslhing v. L.S. John and others, AIR 1984 SC 988. Therefore, we hold that with the submission of the resignation (Annexure P-4) the petitioner ceases to be in service of the State Government. This petition stands disposed of as indicated above." A certified copy of the above judgment has been produced in the Court by Shri Indar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners and has been attached with the record of the petitions. 13. Shri M. L. Sharma, learned Counsel for the returned candidate Shri Moti Ram has cited a number of cases in support of the proposition of law that resignation can be withdrawn before its acceptance and not after it. I need not deal in details with the said case law for the simple reason that the above proposition cannot be disputed but what has to be borne in mind is that all those cases are of Government servants the conditions of service of whom indubitably lay down that the term of their office would come to an end in case of submitting resignation when it is accepted. This argument, therefore, has to be rejected. 14. For the reasons given above, I am of the opinion that Shri Karam Singh held no office whatsoever in the Khadi and Village Industries Board on the date of scrutiny (5-2-1990) since he had tendered his resignation on January 31, 1990. There is, therefore, no question of his having held an office of profit on that date. 14. For the reasons given above, I am of the opinion that Shri Karam Singh held no office whatsoever in the Khadi and Village Industries Board on the date of scrutiny (5-2-1990) since he had tendered his resignation on January 31, 1990. There is, therefore, no question of his having held an office of profit on that date. Reference in this connection may be had to Abdul Hamid Rangrez v. M. N. Koul and others, (40 ELR 130) If so, it would follow as a necessary corollary that the nomination paper filed by Shri Karam Singh was rejected wrongly. 15. Same conclusion flows on account of another ground of challenge. Shri Karam Singh had written the letter dated October 18, 1980 at Ex. P-31 conveying his request of giving up the remuneration of Rs. U500 per month (consolidated) This request was accepted by the State Government and notification Ex. P-30 was issued pursuant to which Shri Karam Singh ceased to be entitled to draw the abovementioned remuneration with effect from January 8, 1990 That he wrongly drew this remuneration for the period from January 8, to January 31, 1990 and later on refunded it vide Receipt Ex P-27 in March 1990 is not material inasmuch as what requires to be seen on the date of scrutiny is whether Shri Karam Singh is entitled to remuneration which could be classified as profit, thereby rendering his office as an office of profit. The test for determining the above point stands laid down in Divya Prakash v. Kuttar Chand Rana and another, AIR 1975 SC 1067 and it is whether Shri Karam Singh could successfully sue for the recovery of the amount. The answer cannot be but in the negative since after the issuance of notification Ex. P-30 stating that Shri Karam Singh would cease to draw the remuneration of Rs. 1,500 per month with effect from January 8, 1990 he would have no cause of action for its recovery in case of non-payment. The answer cannot be but in the negative since after the issuance of notification Ex. P-30 stating that Shri Karam Singh would cease to draw the remuneration of Rs. 1,500 per month with effect from January 8, 1990 he would have no cause of action for its recovery in case of non-payment. Whatever he was entitled to is squarely covered under the definition of compensatory allowance contained in section 2 (a) of Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly Members (Removal of Disqualifications) Act, 1971 which is as follows:— "2 (a) compensatory allowance means such sum of money as the Government may determine as being payable to the holder of an office by way of travelling allowance, daily allowance, sitting allowance, conveyance allowance or house rent allowance for the purpose of enabling him to recoup any expenditure incurred by him in performing the functions of that office." Now section 3 (m) of the above Act reads i— “3 (m) the office of Chairman or Vice-Chairman, director or member of any statutory or non-statutory body other than any such body as is referred to in Clause (1) if the holder of such office is not entitled to any remuneration other than compensatory allowance," Shri Karam Singh being not entitled to remuneration of Rs. 1,500 per mensem after January 8, 1990 he was left with an official car and rent free accommodation besides, of course, the travelling allowance which he would draw in case of official journeys. These were clearly meant for the purpose of enabling him to recoup the expenditure incurred by him in performing the functions of the office of Chairman There was no element of earning or profit in those perks. Disqualification for membership of the Legislative Assembly of Himachal Pradesh, if he had any, stood removed by virtue of section 3 (m) of the above Act read with the provisions of Article 191 (1) (a) of the Constitution. On this account too, the nomination paper of Shri Karam Singh was wrongly rejected by the Returning Officer. 16. Lengthy arguments were addressed from both sides based on the various provisions of the Khadi Act and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder to urge from one side that the office of Chairman of the Khadi Board cannot be construed as an office under the control of the State Government and, from the other side, that it cannot be so construed. This question, in my view, is not free from doubt. However, I do not feel called upon to deal with it in this judgment since, in view of the reasons given above, there is no escape from the conclusion that the nomination paper of Shri Karam Singh was wrongly rejected. Issue No. 1 is, therefore, decided in favour of the petitioners. Issue No 2.—Relief : In view of the above decision against issue No. 1 the petitioners are entitled to the declaration prayed for. I, therefore, grant them a declaration under the provisions of section 100 (1) (c) of the Representation of the People Act that the election of Shri Moti Ram respondent o the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly from 60-Chachiot Assembly Constituency is void There will be, however, no order as to costs in view of the facts and circumstances of this case Before parting with this case, a last submission made by Shri M. L. Sharma, learned Counsel for the returned candidate, may be noticed It has been urged by him that granting the declaration sought, in the facts and circumstances of this case, would be extremely harsh on the returned candidate for no fault of his. He has further argued that the sanctity of the election or mandate of the people should not be lightly interfered with or disturbed. I appreciate his argument but have to express my helplessness in view of the clear provisions of law. An argument of similar nature stands noticed by the Honble Supreme Court in AIR 1986 SC 300. Kirpal Singh v. Uttam Singh and another. May be, a candidate placed in the position of respondent may obtain some interim relief in view of the observations made therein but then that would be for the apex Court and does not fail within the province of this Court. Order accordingly.