JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned decisions as per Ext.P-7 proceedings dated 28.6.2018 rendered by the 1st respondent Government in the Local Self Institutions Department and the consequential Ext.P-8 order dated 18.7.2018 rendered by the 3rd respondent Director of Panchayats, whereby they have ordered cancellation of the widow pension, which was earlier granted to the petitioner, on the ground that she is not eligible for the grant of widow pension taking into account the income derived by her as honorarium paid to her as the President of the local Panchayat concerned. 2. There is no serious dispute as to the fact that the petitioner belongs to backward class (Latin Catholic community) and that she is living in a rented house along with her only son (minor son who is studying in Std.-X). Her husband died on 10.1.2014 as evident from Ext.P-1 death certificate. After the death of her husband, she was sanctioned widow pension from March, 2014 onwards, referred to in Ext.P-9 G.O.(Ms).No. 52/2014/SWD dated 20.6.2004, under the scheme framed by the State Government and later she was actually disbursed widow pension w.e.f. June, 2014. As per the earlier prevalent norms contained in G.O.(Ms).No. 59/2013/SWD dated 20.7.2013, a widow would have been eligible for grant of widow pension under the said scheme, if her income from other sources does not exceed Rs. 3 lakhs. Later, the said ceiling limit was reduced as per Ext.P-9 G.O.(Ms).No. 52/2014/SWD dated 20.6.2014, wherein it was held that the person becomes eligible for grant of widow pension only if her income from all sources does not exceed Rs. 1 lakh per annum. 3. It appears that the monthly widow pension that is being disbursed to the petitioner under the said scheme is a meagre amount @ Rs. 1000/-or so, per month. Later, in the elections to the local Panchayats, which was held in the State in November, 2015 the petitioner was successfully elected as a member of the committee of the Panchayat from a women reserved constituency of the Kadamakkudy grama Panchayat, Ernakulam District and later she was also elected as the president of the said Panchayat in December 2015, as the post of president of the said Panchayat was reserved for women. It further appears from the pleadings on both sides, more particularly Ext.P-5 report submitted to the 3rd respondent Director of Panchayats that a person by name A.X.Joseph was then working as a staff of the said Panchayat on deputation basis from the Labour Department. That the petitioner had to take action against him, which led to the suspension of service of that deputation incumbent and later he had left the said deputation assignment. It also appears that his wife, one Smt. Mini Joseph, had submitted Ext.P-2 complaint dated 10.10.2017 to the Finance Committee Chairman of the said Panchayat alleging that the petitioner has committed financial impropriety inasmuch as she is drawing the benefit of widow pension and that going by the income drawn by her as honorarium, as the president of the Panchayat, the same would exceed the ceiling limit of Rs. 1 lakh, for widow pension and that the grant of widow pension to the petitioner is an abuse of the process, etc. Later, the 3rd respondent Director of Panchayats had issued Ext.P-5 letter dated 16.2.2018 to the said Panchayat for directing to furnish a report on the allegations raised against the petitioner as per Ext.P-2, on the points enumerated in Ext.P-5. Thereupon, the Secretary of the said Panchayat had submitted Ext.P-6 report dated 22.2.2018 before the 4th respondent giving clarifications of various details. It is stated therein that the petitioner was granted widow pension pursuant to her application dated 24.2.2014 and that she was disbursed widow pension based on resolution No.5 of the said Panchayat and that pension was disbursed to her w.e.f. March, 2014 and that the said disbursal of widow pension is current and live. That the petitioner had taken charge as the president of the Panchayat on 19.11.2015 and that she was granted the honorarium in the said post for the first time on 19.12.2015 @ Rs. 3,457/-per month. That for the period from 1.4.2016 to 31.3.2017 she was given honorarium of a total amount of Rs. 1,32,000/-and sitting fee of Rs. 3795/-and travelling allowance of Rs. 26,349/-. Further that the petitioner has no residential house of her own and that she is a widow having minor child (son studying in 10th Std.) and that she has no other employment or other source of income and that she belongs to other back classes (Latin Catholic), etc. 1,32,000/-and sitting fee of Rs. 3795/-and travelling allowance of Rs. 26,349/-. Further that the petitioner has no residential house of her own and that she is a widow having minor child (son studying in 10th Std.) and that she has no other employment or other source of income and that she belongs to other back classes (Latin Catholic), etc. On the basis of Ext.P-8 report, it appears that the 1st respondent Government has issued Ext.P-7 unilaterally and without any reasonable opportunity to the petitioner had directed as per Ext.P-7 that steps should be immediately taken to cancel the widow pension granted to the petitioner as her total annual income taking into account the honorarium as president would exceed the ceiling of Rs. 1 lakh, which is the limit for grant of widow pension. Pursuant to Ext.P-7 order dated 28.6.2018, the 3rd respondent Director of Panchayats has also issued Ext.P-8 order dated 18.7.2016, unilaterally and without affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, whereby it was ordered to cancel/suspend the widow pension granted to the petitioner and also the petitioner should reimburse the widow pension from the date on which her income had exceeded Rs. 1 lakh per annum. It is these orders at Exts.P-7 and P-8 that are under challenge in this W.P.(C). 4. The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows: “1. Call for the entire records pertaining to the fcs pleaded in the writ petition (civil). 2. Issue a Writ of Certiorari, any other Order, writ or direction, to quash Exhibit P-7 and P-8 Orders, suspending this petitioner's widow pension and directing reimbursement of pension; 3. Issue a Writ of Mandamus any other writ, order or direction, directing Respondents to continue release of pension under the Social Justice Department to this Petitioner. 4. Such other reliefs that this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the in the interest of Justice. 5. Award costs of the proceeding.” 5. Heard Sri.Denizen Komath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Govt. Pleader appearing for the respondents. 6. The 1st respondent has filed a statement dated 23.10.2018. Therein it is stated that as per Ext.P-9 G.O.(Ms).No. 52/2014/SWD dated 20.6.2014 the ceiling limit for grant of widow pension has been further reduced from the earlier amount of Rs. Rs. 3 lakh per annum to Rs. Pleader appearing for the respondents. 6. The 1st respondent has filed a statement dated 23.10.2018. Therein it is stated that as per Ext.P-9 G.O.(Ms).No. 52/2014/SWD dated 20.6.2014 the ceiling limit for grant of widow pension has been further reduced from the earlier amount of Rs. Rs. 3 lakh per annum to Rs. 1 lakh per annum and that the grand total of the honorarium and sitting fee received by the petitioner computed together would exceed Rs. 1 lakh per annum and that therefore she is not entitled to receive the Indira Gandhi widow pension and it is on the basis that they attempt to justify the issuance of Exts.P-7 and P-8 cancellation orders. Further it is contended in the said statement of the 1st respondent that honorarium paid to the petitioner is the fee or remuneration for the service rendered by her as president of the Panchayat. By quoting the judicial dictionary, it is contended that “honorarium” means prima facie implies gratuitous payment, but it also means a fee for services rendered”. Further quoting the Oxford English Dictionary, it is contended that “honorarium” is defined as “honorary reward; a fee for (professional) services rendered.” Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Jaya Bachan v. UOI & ors. reported in AIR 2006 SC 2119 , wherein it has been held as follows: “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.” 7. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Motisingh v. Bhaiyyalal reported in AIR 1968 Bom. 370 , wherein it has been held as follows: “the Honorarium which was sanctioned to the petitioner would necessarily be as his fee or remuneration for the work done by him. The euphemistic use of the word Honorarium would not change the fact that he is getting regular and monthly remuneration.” 8. Both sides have advanced respective submissions and contentions. There is no dispute that Exts.P-7 and P-8 have been issued unilaterally by respondents 1 and 2 respectively, without any prior reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. The euphemistic use of the word Honorarium would not change the fact that he is getting regular and monthly remuneration.” 8. Both sides have advanced respective submissions and contentions. There is no dispute that Exts.P-7 and P-8 have been issued unilaterally by respondents 1 and 2 respectively, without any prior reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. This Court while admitting W.P.(C). had ordered that the operation and enforcement of Ext.P-7 proceedings shall be kept in abeyance. The said interim order has been extended from time to time. 9. Therefore, without getting into the merits of the controversy in any manner, it is only to be held that the impugned Exts.P-7 and P-8 proceedings are illegal and ultra vires and they are liable to be rescinded on that ground alone. However, taking into account the indisputable fact that the petitioner is a widow, who belongs to economically and socially backward class of society (OBC) as she belongs to Latin Catholic (OBC community) and also the crucial fact that that the petitioner is a widow, who does not own any house and does not have any other source of income and that she is staying in a rented house along with her minor son, this Court is proposing to go into the merits of the controversy. 10. Sri.Denizen Komath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made elaborate contentions on the basis of the decisions of the Apex Court in Anokh Singh v. Punjab State Election Commission reported in (2011) 11 SCC 181 and certain other decisions of the Apex Court as in Ravanna Subanna v. G.S.Kaggeerappa, reported in AIR 1954 SC 653 , Umarao Singh v. Darbara Singh [ AIR 1969 SC 262 ] Karbhari Bhimaji Rohamare v. Shanker Rao Genuji Kolhe [ (1975) 1 SCC 252 ], etc. to advance his contention that though honorarium in some context may also partake the colour of income, it is the bounden duty of the respondents in a case like the instant one to establish conclusively that the amounts expected to be expended by the recipient of the honorarium does not exceed the total amount of honorarium so that there is net receipt of income or remuneration for the incumbent concerned and only that part of the honorarium amount which is in excess of the amount likely to be expended in discharge of the expenditures attached to the position, that could be taken into account for computing the receipt of income or remuneration, etc. That in the instant case, the respondents have fully failed to even remotely establish that the amounts that are reasonably likely to be expended by a person who is the president of the Panchayat does not exceed the total honorarium amount. Further that it is too well settled that the amounts granted to a president of a Panchayat by way of sitting allowances, sitting fees, travelling allowance, etc. are only reimbursement of expenses by way of travelling and other out of pocket expenses of the incumbent and those aspects cannot be even remotely reckoned as the income of the incumbent. It is clear from a reading of the impugned orders as well as statement dated 23.10.2018 filed by none other than the 1st respondent Government that respondents 1 and 3 have computed not only the honorarium amount, but also the sitting fees, etc. to hold that the total income of the petitioner exceeds the ceiling limit of Rs.1 lakh, in order to allegedly make her in eligible for grant of the widow pension. 11. Per contra, the learned Senior Govt. Pleader would contend that going by the dictionary meaning of the word, “honorarium” it also partakes the meaning and colour of “income” and therefore no illegality and unreasonableness has been committed by respondents 1 an 2 in taking into account the honorarium amount and the sitting fees received by the petitioner in her capacity as the president of the Panchayat for determining whether her income from other sources exceeds Rs. 1 lakh for the purpose of grant of widow pension. 12. 1 lakh for the purpose of grant of widow pension. 12. In the case in Ravanna Subanna v. G.S.Kaggeerappa, [ AIR 1954 SC 653 ] the Apex Court has dealt with a case whether the person holding the post of the Chairman of the Gubbi Taluk Development Committee could be said to be holding an “office of profit” under the Government. In that case, the position of the Chairman of the said Taluk Development Committee was carried along with it an entitlement of sitting fee of Rs. 6 for each sitting of the said committee and it was held by the Apex Court that the fee of Rs. 6 which the chairman was entitled draw for each sitting was neither meant to be a payment by way of remuneration nor it could amount to profit and that fee was paid to the chairman to enable him to meet the “out of pocket expenses” which he has to incur for attending the meetings of the said taluk committee. Accordingly, it is held by the Apex Court in para 12 of Ravanna Subanna's case supra [ AIR 1954 SC 653 ] p.656-657 as follows: “12. … The plain meaning of the expression seems to be that an office must be held under Government to which any pay, salary, emoluments or allowance is attached. The word ‘profit’ connotes the idea of pecuniary gain. If there is really a gain, its quantum or amount would not be material; but the amount of money receivable by a person in connection with the office he holds may be material in deciding whether the office really carries any profit. … *** From the facts stated above, we think it can reasonably be inferred that the fee of Rs. 6 which the non-official Chairman is entitled to draw for each sitting of the Committee, he attends, 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. We do not think that it was the intention of the Government which created these Taluk Development Committees which were to be manned exclusively by non-officials, that the office of the Chairman or of the members should carry any profit or remuneration.” 13. We do not think that it was the intention of the Government which created these Taluk Development Committees which were to be manned exclusively by non-officials, that the office of the Chairman or of the members should carry any profit or remuneration.” 13. In the case in Umrao Singh v. Darbara Singh [ AIR 1969 SC 262 ] the issue considered was as to whether the payment to a chairman of the Panchayat samithi under Rule 3 thereof, which is described as a monthly consolidated allowance in lieu of all other allowances for performing all officials duties and journeys concerning the Panchayat samithi within the District, including attending of meetings, supervision of plans, projects, scheme, etc. would amount to remuneration or honorarium. It was held by the Apex Court in para 5 of the Umrao's case supra that the allowance paid for the purpose of ensuring that the chairman of the Panchayat samithi does not have to spend money out of his own pocket for the discharge of his duties. It was held by the Apex Court that the said allowance has been paid for only ensuring that the chairman of the said samithi does not have to spend money out of his pocket for the discharge of his duties. That the duties of the chairman are that he must conduct journeys within the district and must be incurring expenditure when attending meetings, supervising plans, projects, schemes and other works and also in connection with discharge of lawful obligations and implementation of Government directives. It was held by the Apex Court therein that no evidence whatsoever has been led on behalf of he objector/appellant therein to show that the chairman of a Panchayat samithi does not have to perform such journeys in the course of his official duties and incur expenditure in that connection. That the State Government, which was the competent authority has fixed the allowance of the chairman of the Panchayat samithi at the given rate obviously because it was of the opinion that the sum fixed is required on an average every month to meet the expenses which the chairman will have to incur in that connection. That the State Government, which was the competent authority has fixed the allowance of the chairman of the Panchayat samithi at the given rate obviously because it was of the opinion that the sum fixed is required on an average every month to meet the expenses which the chairman will have to incur in that connection. That the burden lay on the objectors/appellant therein to give evidence on the basis of which a definite finding could have been arrived at that the prescribed amount was excessive and was not required to compensate the chairman for the expenses to be incurred by him in the discharge of his official duties, etc. Further the Apex Court has also held in Umrao's case supra that the daily allowance given to the chairman is invariably fixed after estimating what extra expenditure in a day the person concerned will have to incur and that a chairman is expected to incur more expenditure than a member and that is the reason why a higher rate of daily allowance is prescribed for him and that in such cases, such a payment is clearly meant only to cover additional expenditure and out of pocket expenses of the chairman and while no evidence has been advanced to show that out of the amount received as daily allowance the chairman will in fact invariably make a saving, etc. and that therefore it cannot be said that the so called honorarium derived in that regard is one which would amount to profit or remuneration so as to make the office as an office of profit. It is pertinent to refer to paragraphs 5 and 8 of the abovesaid judgment of the Apex Court in Umrao's case supra [ AIR 1969 SC 262 ] pp.265-66, which read as follows: “5. The payment to a Chairman, Panchayat Samiti, under Rule 3 is described in the rule as a monthly consolidated allowance in lieu of all other allowances for performing all official duties and journeys concerning the Panchayat Samiti within the district, including attending of meetings, supervision of plans, projects, schemes and other works and also for the discharge of all lawful obligations and implementation of Government directives. This provision in very clear language shows that the allowance paid is not salary, remuneration or honorarium. This provision in very clear language shows that the allowance paid is not salary, remuneration or honorarium. It is clearly an allowance paid for the purpose of ensuring that the Chairman of a Panchayat Samiti does not have to spend money out of his own pocket for the discharge of his duties. It envisages that, in performing the duties, the Chairman must undertake journeys within the district and must be incurring expenditure when attending meetings, supervising plans, projects, schemes and other works and also in connection with the discharge of other lawful obligations and implementation of Government directives. No evidence has been led on behalf of the appellant to show that a Chairman of a Panchayat Samiti does not have to perform such journeys in the course of his official duties and to incur expenditure in that connection. The State Government, which was the competent authority, fixed the allowance for a Chairman of a Panchayat Samiti at Rs. 100 per month, obviously because it was of the opinion that this sum will be required on an average every month to meet the expenses which the Chairman will have to incur in this connection. In these circumstances, the burden lay on the appellant to give evidence on the basis of which a definite finding could have been arrived at that the amount of Rs. 100 per month was excessive and was not required to compensate the Chairman for the expenses to be incurred by him in the discharge of his official duties as envisaged in the rule. That burden clearly has not been even attempted to be discharged by the appellant. *** 8. Our attention was drawn by learned counsel to the fact that in Rule 7 the persons entitled to daily allowance are divided into two categories and a Chairman of a Panchayat Samiti belonging to Category I is entitled to Rs. 6 per diem when a Member of the Samiti belonging to Category II is only entitled to Rs. 4 per diem. The argument was that there was no explanation for payment at a higher rate to the Chairman and, consequently, it must be held that the Chairman must be making a gain out of the payment to him of daily allowance. We are unable to accept this submission. 4 per diem. The argument was that there was no explanation for payment at a higher rate to the Chairman and, consequently, it must be held that the Chairman must be making a gain out of the payment to him of daily allowance. We are unable to accept this submission. The daily allowance is invariably fixed after estimating what extra expenditure in a day the person concerned would have to incur. A Chairman, it appears, was expected to incur more expenditure per day than a Member, and that seems to be the reason why a higher rate of daily allowance was prescribed for him. In any case, such a payment is clearly meant only to cover additional expenditure and out-of-pocket expenses of the Chairman and, while no evidence has been advanced to show that out of the amount received as daily allowance the Chairman will in fact invariably make a saying, it cannot be held that this payment would result in gain so as to make the office an office of profit.” 14. In the case in Karbhari Bhimaji Rohamare v. Shanker Rao Genuji Kolhe [ (1975) 1 SCC 252 ] the question that was considered was whether the person concerned who was successfully elected as the member of the Legislative Assembly had incurred disqualification as he was holding an office of profit under the State Government as a member of the Wage Board for the Sugar Industry constituted by the Government of Maharashtra under Sec. 86B of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. Though it was held that a member of the Board will be holding the office under the Government, the Apex Court observed that mere drawl of the daily allowance and travelling allowance could not make membership of the Board, an “office of profit” as the allowances drawn by such member would be merely compensatory in nature considering the nature of payment made to the members of the Board. Further the Apex Court also referred to the dictionary meaning of “honorarium” and held that mere dictionary meaning would not resolve the issue and that the matter must be considered as a matter of substance rather than of form, and the essence of payment rather than its nomenclature is the crucial and relevant aspect of the matter. 15. Further the Apex Court also referred to the dictionary meaning of “honorarium” and held that mere dictionary meaning would not resolve the issue and that the matter must be considered as a matter of substance rather than of form, and the essence of payment rather than its nomenclature is the crucial and relevant aspect of the matter. 15. In evaluating the substance of the nature of the payment, the Apex Court considered in detail the various payment made to the member of the Wage Board as well as the number of meetings attended and the places at which the meetings were attended. Accordingly it was held in para 10 of the case in Karbhari's case supra [ (1975) 1 SCC 252 ] that the question has to be examined in a realistic way and merely because part of the payment made to the person concerned is called “honorarium” and part of the payment is daily allowance, will not lead to the conclusion that the daily allowance is sufficient to meet his daily expenses and the honorarium is a source of profit. Further the Apex Court has clearly observed that the member of the Wage Board cannot be excepted to stay in Taj Hotel and have a few drinks and claim the expenditure incurred, which may come to a high amount, as his personal expenses and in such case it may well be held to give him a pecuniary gain. On the other hand, he is not expected to live like a sanyasi and stay in a dharmashala and depend upon the hospitality of his friends and relatives or force himself upon them. That nobody with a knowledge of the expenditure likely to be incurred by a person staying at a place away from his home could fail to realise the impact of his assessment. Accordingly their Lordships of the Apex Court have held that the payments made to the person concerned therein cannot be a source of profit unless he stays with some friends or relatives or stays in a dharmashala and objectors/appellant therein has not satisfied the test or discharged the burden pointed out by the Apex Court in Umrao's case supra [ AIR 1969 SC 262 ]. That the law regarding the question as to whether a person holding an office of profit should be interpreted reasonably having regard to the circumstances of the case and the times with which one is concerned, as also the class of person whose case the Apex Court is dealing with and not divorced from the reality. It will be profitable to refer paragraph 10 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Karbhari's case supra [ (1975) 1 SCC 252 , p.259] which reads as follows: “10. … The question has to be looked at in a realistic way. Merely because part of the payment made to the first respondent is called honorarium and part of the payment daily allowance, we cannot come to the conclusion that the daily allowance is sufficient to meet his daily expenses and the honorarium is a source of profit. A member of the Wage Board cannot expect to stay in Taj Hotel and have a few drinks and claim the expenditure incurred, which may come perhaps to Rs. 150 to Rs. 200 a day, for his personal expenses. In such a case it may well be held to give him a pecuniary gain. On the other hand he is not expected to live like a sanyasi and stay in a dharmshala and depend upon the hospitality of his friends and relatives or force himself upon them. Nobody with a knowledge of the expenditure likely to be incurred by a person staying at a place away from his home could fail to realise how correct the assessment of the learned Judge is. We are satisfied that the payments made to the first respondent cannot be a source of profit unless he stays with some friends or relatives or stays in a dharmshala. The appellant has not satisfied the test or discharged the burden pointed out by this Court in Umrao Singh case [ AIR 1969 SC 262 ]. The law regarding the question whether a person holds an office of profit should be interpreted reasonably having regard to the circumstances of the case and the times with which one is concerned, as also the class of person whose case we are dealing with and not divorced from reality. We are thus satisfied that the first respondent did not hold an office of profit.” 16. We are thus satisfied that the first respondent did not hold an office of profit.” 16. Further in the judgment of the Apex Court in Anokh Singh v. Punjab State Election Commission [ (2011) 11 SCC 181 ] considered the question as to whether honorarium of Rs. 900/-per month payable to the position of Lambardar with no other remuneration, etc. would make it an office of profit under the Government so as to disqualify him in the election to the grama sabha under Sec. 208(1)(g) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act. In para 15 of the said in Anokh Singh's case the Apex Court held that since the Lambardar is not holding any post of the Government, no salary is payable to him and there is no pay scale attached to the office of Lambardar and therefore it cannot be said that he is in receipt of any remuneration in that regard. After referring to Ravanna Subanna's case [ AIR 1954 SC 653 ] the Apex Court has held in paragraph 27 of the Anokh Singh's case supra [ (2011) 11 SCC 181 ] that no reason has been given in the impugned judgment of the High Court for concluding that the honorarium received by a Lambardar is not compensatory in nature and that the impugned judgment has erred in not analysing the real and substantive nature of the honorarium and that the impugned judgment of the High Court has failed to take notice of the fact that the respondents had placed no material whatsoever on record to establish that the honorarium of Rs. 900/-would result in a net gain to the Lambardar and in other words, the out of pocket expenses for attending to the duties of the Lambardar would be less than Rs. 900/-per month. After referring to Umrao's case supra [ AIR 1969 SC 262 ] the Apex Court has held in para 29 of Anokh Singh's case [ (2011) 11 SCC 181 , p.193] that the observations in Umrao's case supra are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the Anokh Singh's case as well and even the payment of allowances to chairman, Panchayat Samithi was held to be out of pocket expenses. It was further emphasised by the Apex Court that the burden lay heavily on the appellant/objector to give evidence to show that amount paid would be in excess of the expenses, etc. It was further emphasised by the Apex Court that the burden lay heavily on the appellant/objector to give evidence to show that amount paid would be in excess of the expenses, etc. It will be pertinent to refer to the paragraphs 19, 27, 29 and 33 of the Apex Court judgment in Anokh Singh's case supra, which read as follows: “19. Thereafter the aforesaid percentage of cess has been replaced by an honorarium of Rs. 500 per month under a Circular dated 9-10-2006 issued by the Government of Punjab, Department of Revenue and Rehabilitation to all Deputy Commissioners in the State. Currently the Lambardar receives Rs. 900 per month as honorarium. This honorarium is merely compensatory to meet the out-of-pocket expenses, incurred in the performance of his duties. xxx xxx xxx 27. The High Court gives no reason for concluding that the honorarium received by a Lambardar is not compensatory in nature. The High Court erred in not analysing the real and substantive nature of the honorarium. The High Court failed to take notice of the fact that the respondents had placed no material on the record to establish that the honorarium of Rs. 900 would result in a net gain to the Lambardar. In other words, the out-of-pocket expenses for attending to the duties of a Lambardar would be less than Rs. 900 per month. xxx xxx xxx 29. The aforesaid observations in Umrao Singh case-6 are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Even the payment of allowances to Chairman, Panchayat Samiti was held to be out-of-pocket expenses. It was emphasised that the burden lay on the appellant to give evidence to show that amount paid would be in excess of the expenses. It was further observed that even with regard to higher allowance paid to Chairman for performing duties outside the district, there was no evidence from which an inference could be drawn that the allowance paid would be in excess of the expenditure incurred in performance of the duties by the Chairman. xxx xxx xxx 33. In view of the above, the conclusion reached by the High Court that receipt of Rs. 900 is not compensatory 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.” 17. xxx xxx xxx 33. In view of the above, the conclusion reached by the High Court that receipt of Rs. 900 is not compensatory 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.” 17. Now coming to the facts of this case, the following aspects are relevant:- Sec.160 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, deals with honorarium to members of Panchayats and other perquisites. Sub section (1) thereof stipulates that there shall be paid honorarium at such rate as may be prescribed to the President, the Vice-President and other elected members of the Panchayat. Sub sections (2), (3) of Sec. 160 may not be concerning with this case as it is in relation to the president of district Panchayat. Whereas the present case is one in relation to the president of the local grama Panchayat. Sub section (4) of Sec. 160 further stipulates that the president and vice-president of a Panchayat at any level shall be entitled, while touring on public business, to travelling and daily allowances at such rates as may be prescribed. Sub section (5) thereof further states that every member of the Panchayat other than the president of the District Panchayat shall be entitled to receive travelling and daily allowances at such rates as prescribed for attending the meetings of the Panchayat or any committee thereof. Rule 3 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Honorarium and Allowances to Representatives of People) Rules, 1995, stipulates about the monthly honorarium payable to the president and vice president and other elected members of the Panchayat. It is stated in internal page 2 of Ext.P-6 report that the initial honorarium amount that was paid to the petitioner when she had taken charge on 19.12.2015 was Rs.3,457/-. Further it appears that the said amount was the rate upto March, 2016. Later the said honorarium amount was revised from the financial year 2016-17. Further it can be seen that for the period from April 2016 upto August, 2016, the monthly honorarium amount was Rs.6,600/-. Later it has been revised from September 2016 onwards @ Rs. 13200/-per month. Rule 3A of the abovesaid Rules stipulates that the Representatives of the people in a Panchayat shall be eligible for honorarium even if they have income from other sources including Government. Later it has been revised from September 2016 onwards @ Rs. 13200/-per month. Rule 3A of the abovesaid Rules stipulates that the Representatives of the people in a Panchayat shall be eligible for honorarium even if they have income from other sources including Government. Rules 3A, 3B, 3C, 4 to 8 of the abovesaid rules provide as follows: “Rule 3A:Eligibility for honorarium.-The Representatives of people in a Panchayat shall be eligible for honorarium even if they have income from other sources including Government. Rule 3B: Eligibility for honorarium of a Representative of People on leave:-The Representatives of People availing leave with the permission of the Panchayat shall be eligible for the honorarium during the period continuing on leave, up to a maximum of six months. While considering the eligibility for honorarium, instead of taking the meetings attended as the basis, the eligibility shall be decided by verifying whether the Representative of People is on leave with the permission of the Panchayat or not. Rule 3C: Eligibility for honorarium of a member holding charge of the President. When the Vice-President or any other member of a Panchayat holds the charge of the President, that member shall be eligible for the honorarium entitled to the president and if the duration of holding of such charge is less than 30 days, the honorarium shall be paid proportionally calculating the number of days of the charge held. Rule 4: House Rent Allowance to the District Panchayat President in lieu of providing house without payment of rent.- The President of a District Panchayat shall be entitled without payment or rent, to the use of a house at the Headquarters of the District Panchayat throughout his term of office and for a period of fifteen days immediately thereafter or in lieu of it a house rent allowance of rupees one thousand two hundred] per month. Rule 5: Travelling allowance to attend the meeting- Travelling allowance for attending the meeting of Panchayat or any Committee thereof shall be given to the Presidents of Panchayats other than President of a District Panchayat, Vice Presidents, Chairman of Standing Committee and members in the following rate, but daily allowance shall not be given along with it. Rule 5: Travelling allowance to attend the meeting- Travelling allowance for attending the meeting of Panchayat or any Committee thereof shall be given to the Presidents of Panchayats other than President of a District Panchayat, Vice Presidents, Chairman of Standing Committee and members in the following rate, but daily allowance shall not be given along with it. for the Presidents of Block Panchayats and Village Panchayats, Vice-Presidents and Chairman of Standing Committee of Panchayats at any level and every member of a District Panchayat the travelling allowance entitled to Class I Officers of Government in accordance with the provisions of Kerala Service Rules for the time being in force: (ii) for every member of Block Panchayat and Village Panchayat the travelling allowance entitled to Class II (A) Officers of Government in accordance with the provisions of Kerala Service Rules for the time being in force. Rule 6: Attendance allowance to participate in the meeting- The attendance allowance that may be allowed to participate in the meeting of Panchayat or any Committee thereof shall be at the rate specified below, namely:-Seventy Five rupees per sitting to the President Vice-President and Chairman of Standing Committee of Panchayat at any level and members of District Panchayat subject to a maximum of three hundred and sixty] rupees for a month to a person; (ii) At the rate of Sixty rupees per day to every member of Block Panchayat and Village Panchayat subject to a maximum of three hundred] rupees for a month. Rule 7: Travelling allowance and daily allowance.-(1) The President and Vice-President of Panchayat at any level shall be entitled to travelling allowance and daily allowance, while on tour for a public business, at the rate entitled to Class I Officers of Government in accordance with the provisions of Kerala Service Rules for the time being in force. (2) Members of District Panchayat and Chairman of Standing Committee of Panchayat at any level shall be entitled to travelling allowance and daily allowance, while on tour for a public business, at the rate entitled to Class I Officers of Government in accordance with the provisions of Kerala Service Rules for the time being in force. (2) Members of District Panchayat and Chairman of Standing Committee of Panchayat at any level shall be entitled to travelling allowance and daily allowance, while on tour for a public business, at the rate entitled to Class I Officers of Government in accordance with the provisions of Kerala Service Rules for the time being in force. (3) Every member of Block Panchayat and Village Panchayat shall be entitled to travelling allowance and daily allowance at the rate entitled to Class II (A) Officers of Government in accordance with the provisions of Kerala Service Rules for the time being in force:- (a) for the journey conducted to the District Panchayat headquarters or Block Panchayat headquarters with the approval of Panchayat; (b) if invited to attend the meeting or training programmes convened by the Government or authorised Officer, journey conducted to attend such meeting or training programmes; and (c) the journeys which are not included in clause (a) and (b) above but conducted for the business for Panchayat which is approved by a resolution passed by majority opinion of members present at the meeting of Panchayat. Rule 8: Context where travelling allowance not entitled Travelling allowance shall not be entitled for a journey conducted from a place within a distance of eight kilometres from the headquarters of the Panchayat or to such place and for a journey which has not been approved by the Panchayat. (2) Travelling allowance shall not be entitled for a journey from more than one Panchayat at the same time. If the President or Vice-President or Member conducts a journey outside the State without the previous sanction of the Government, travelling shall not be entitled for such journey: Provided that previous sanction of the Government need not be obtained for the journey conducted in connection with the business of Panchayat by the President, Vice-President or Member of Panchayats in the border of the State for the journey to a place just outside the border of the State. (4) The travelling allowance of the Representatives of People of Panchayat shall be fixed as per the Kerala Service Rules and the monthly/quarterly ceiling stipulated by the Government shall be applicable:” 18. Though the abovesaid decisions of the Apex Court cited herein above are in relation to the issue as to whether the receipt of allowances or honorarium, etc. would amount to profit or remuneration, etc. Though the abovesaid decisions of the Apex Court cited herein above are in relation to the issue as to whether the receipt of allowances or honorarium, etc. would amount to profit or remuneration, etc. so as to construe the said office as office of profit, the legal principles emanating from those decisions are directly importable to the facts of this case, for deciding the substantive issue as to whether or not the honorarium and other allowances, etc. should be construed as receipt of remuneration or income or profit as as far the president of the Panchayat is concerned. There is no dispute that, in the facts of this case the position of president of a Panchayat is not a post under the Government nor does it carry any scale of pay and it is only an elected position. Therefore, to that extent, the facts of this case are broadly similar to the one dealt with by the Apex Court in Anokh Singh's case supra as can be seen from para 15 of that judgment. Therefore, going by the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court in those cases, it shall be bounden duty of the respondents to conclusively establish that the receipt of the abovesaid amounts especially by way of honorarium and sitting fee, would exceed the actual reasonable amounts that are expected to be expended by an incumbent holding the position of elected president of the grama Panchayat concerned. That burden is to be discharged by the respondents and that they have to conclusively show that the total amounts drawn by way of honorarium and sitting fee would exceed the reasonable amount that are expected to be expended by a person in the abovesaid position. Unless that burden is discharged, the respondents cannot succeed in this matter, even if it is assumed that the entire amounts of honorarium and sitting fee may not be required for expending all the reasonable out of pocket expenses and other expenses expected to be borne by a person in the election position of a president of the grama Panchayat. Unless that burden is discharged, the respondents cannot succeed in this matter, even if it is assumed that the entire amounts of honorarium and sitting fee may not be required for expending all the reasonable out of pocket expenses and other expenses expected to be borne by a person in the election position of a president of the grama Panchayat. At the outset it has to be stated that the respondents have dogmatically proceeded as if the entirety of the honorarium amount and the sitting fee should be construed as receipt of income without any consideration as to whether a person in the position of the president of the grama Panchayat is reasonably expected to expend any amounts thereof in legitimate exercise of his duties and functions, which he owes to the constituents of that Panchayat. Therefore, on the mere ground that respondents 1 and 2 have miserably failed to discharge the abovesaid burden and for blindly proceeding on the premise that the entirety of the amount of honorarium and sitting fee should be automatically taken as the income of the petitioner, would itself amount to taking into consideration irrelevant aspects and not reckoning fine tuned and relevant aspects of the matter. On that ground alone, it is to be held that the impugned decision making process which led to Exts.P7 and P-8 is vitiated by taking into consideration irrelevant aspects and not reckoning the aspects fine tuned and relevant parameters of the matter. 19. That apart, as succinctly observed by the Apex Court in para 5 of Umarao's case supra [ AIR 1969 SC 262 ] it has to be borne in mind that the position of the president of a Panchayat is quite distinct from other members of the Panchayat. The ordinary members of the Panchayat are having their duties mainly to the constituent of that ward, to which they are elected as member. Whereas persons elected to the position of president have to look after the entire Panchayat and its constituents and not merely to take care of the voters of the respective wards, from which they were elected as the members of the Panchayat. Whereas persons elected to the position of president have to look after the entire Panchayat and its constituents and not merely to take care of the voters of the respective wards, from which they were elected as the members of the Panchayat. Therefore, the respondents who are very much in the knowledge about the actual functioning of the three tier level of the Panchayats, more particularly, that of the grama Panchayat like the instant one, should certainly know that the person like the petitioner, who is the president of the Panchayat is expected to take care of the needs of not only the voters in her respective ward, from where she has been elected as the member of the committee of the Panchayat, but also to take care of the needs of the entire constituents and voters of the whole areas of the Panchayat. In that regard, the president is reasonably expected to discharge her duties and functions in that regard which would certainly consist of travelling, to various wards in the Panchayat, as also having frequent inter-face and interaction with the block level Panchayat as well as the District Panchayat and also with the Deputy Directorate and Directors of Panchayats and also with the Government in the Local Self Government, which is the apex body in governance at the Governmental level. It is also quite reasonable to infer that the president of a grama Panchayat is also expected to have necessary inter-face and interaction with the Member of the Parliament and the Member of the Legislative Assembly, in whose respective constituencies the Panchayat would otherwise fall so as to also properly interact with those legislative functionaries to address the needs and requirements of the constituents and voters of the entire Panchayat. This is not a simple and easy task and it would certainly involve various out of pocket expenses and travelling expenses. A perusal of the rules would make it clear that the various travelling allowances are of very limited nature and certainly those to the extent those limited expenses would come within the ambit of the rules, then an incumbent in the position of president of the Panchayat could those amounts sanctioned as allowances, but within the limits mentioned in the Rules. But it will be extremely unfair and amateurish to conclude that the entire expenses that are reasonably expected to be met by a person in the position of the president of local grama Panchayat could be met within the limited amounts covered by the Rules. A mere perusal of the rules would make it clear that many of the frequent duties and functions expected to be discharged by the president of the grama Panchayat may not come within the narrow ambit and scope of the allowances envisaged in the abovesaid rules. Therefore, those amounts will have to be certainly expended as out of pocket expenses. The only way the person in the position of the president of the Panchayat can legitimately recoup is from meeting it from the extra amounts given by way of honorarium, sitting fee, etc. At any rate, it goes without saying that sitting fee and travelling allowance, etc. which are otherwise admissible as per the rules, cannot be construed as receipt of income or remuneration or profit as far as the president of a grama Panchayat is concerned. So what remains is only the honorarium part of it. The said amount was Rs. 6600/-per month from April, 2016 upto August 2016, which is enhanced to Rs. 13,200/-per month from September 2016 onwards. It is not in dispute that the total annual honorarium is computed @ Rs. 6600/-per month and the annual figure would come hardly to Rs. 79,200/-(Rs. 6600 x 12 = Rs. 79,200/-). Therefore, by no stretch of imagination the initial pre-revised honorarium rate of Rs. 79,200/-per annum would in any manner exceed the ceiling limit of Rs. 1 lakh per annum meant for grant of widow pension. True that if the revised honorarium figure of Rs. 13,200/-per month is computed on an annual basis, the same would come to Rs. 1,58,400/-(Rs. 13200 x 12 = Rs. 1,58,400/-and that may technically exceed the ceiling limit of Rs. 1 lakh. In view of the abovesaid factual aspects of the matter, it can be easily deduced that the incumbent holding the position president of a grama Panchayat would certainly incur expenses of more than at least Rs.59,000/-per annum for meeting the out of pocket expenses which are not otherwise available to her for recouping from the other amount by way of sitting fee and travelling allowances. That apart, it has already been held by this Court that sitting fee and travelling allowances, etc. which are otherwise payable as per rules cannot be reckoned as receipt of income, remuneration, profit, etc. Therefore, what remains is only the honorarium part of Rs. 1,58,000/-per annum. Since amounts much more than at least Rs. 59,000/-per annum could be reasonably expected to be expended by the president of a grama Panchayat, the net remuneration or income or profit, that is otherwise receivable by a president of the Panchayat like the petitioner would be less than Rs. 1 lakh, which means it would not cross the threshold of the maximum ceiling limit of Rs. 1 lakh per year, which is meant for grant of widow pension. This crucial and relevant aspect of the matter has been completed lost sight of respondents 1 and 3. True that the term, “ honorarium” could also partake the colour and contours of income or profit depending upon the context and even if it is so assumed, in the facts of this case, it has also to be borne in mind that the reasonable out of pocket expenses that are reasonably expected to be expended by a person in the position of the president of a grama Panchayat, is reckoned and if the net part of the honorarium does not exceed Rs.1 lakh, the petitioner is fully entitled to succeed. That aspect of the matter is conclusively found in favour of the petitioner. It is beyond any factual controversy that the widow like the petitioner is otherwise eligible for the grant of widow pension under the Indira Gandhi widow pension scheme, as her net income does not exceed Rs. 1 lakh. 20. After making a reasonable deduction of the out of pocket expenses to be borne, as indicated above, even if there is a net income or profit or remuneration, the same cannot exceed Rs. 1 lakh in the facts and circumstances of the case. In that view of the matter, it is only to be held that Ext.P-7 and P-8 proceedings are ultra vires and illegal and are liable be struck down. Accordingly, 21. 1 lakh in the facts and circumstances of the case. In that view of the matter, it is only to be held that Ext.P-7 and P-8 proceedings are ultra vires and illegal and are liable be struck down. Accordingly, 21. It is also now submitted by the petitioner's counsel that the term of the committee of the Panchayat is only upto November/ December 2020 and thereafter the elections are to be conducted afresh and that most likely, the post of the President of the Panchayat will not be reserved for women members and is likely to set apart in the general quota. Taking into account all these aspects, it is ordered that the petitioner is entitled and eligible for continuous grant of widow pension in the present facts and circumstances of the case. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of.